Skip to main content

Full text of "Studies in Jewish Statistics: Social, Vital and Anthropometric"

See other formats


This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 

to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 

publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 
We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 

at |http: //books .google .com/I 





Illustrations of Cc 


)MPosiTE Portraiture . 




Social, Vital and Anthropometric, 



I)i relation to society mimhers are qualities, 

George Eliot, Da?i. Deronda, c. xlii. 

D. NUTT, 270, STRAND. 









The following studies began in an attempt to get reliable 
data about the Jews of Europe when the anti-Semitic move- 
ment was at its height. In going through the literature of 
the subject, of which I have published a bibliography (" The 
Jewish Question, 1875-1885," Triibner), I was struck by the 
paucity of trustworthy evidence, both among Jews and their 
opponents. The subject once entered upon, I got interested 
in it, apart from its polemical bearings, and I collected at the 
time (1882-3) a mass of materials of all kinds. Some of these 
I utilized in the following studies, which appeared in the 
Jewish Chronicle of 1882-5, and in the Journal of the mdnthropo- 
logical Institute from 1885 to 1889. The latter part of the paper 
on Vital Statistics appears here for the first time. As they 
were printed, a number of " off-prints " were made of them, 
and they are now collected together. Fragmentary as they 
are, these contain a larger quantity of statistical material than 
is elsewhere available. 

I have to thank the editor of the Jemish Chronicle, and 
the Council of the Anthropological Institute, for their kind 
permission to reprint these articles. My friend, Mr. I. Spiel- 
man, has also allowed me to include a paper written in common 
with him from materials collected by him. 

Joseph Jacobs. 




Studies IK Jewish Statistics (from the Jewish Clironiclr). 


T. Consanguineous Marriages 1 

II. Social Condition of the Jews of London .... 10 

III. The " Foreign Contingent " 18 

IV. Occupations 22 

V. Occupations of London Jews 33 

VT, Professions 41 

VII. Vital Statistics (i.), Marriages (ii.), Births ... 49 

Appendicbs (from the Jtnirnal of the Anthropological InittUute). 

A. The Racial Characteristics of Modern Jews . . . . i. 

B. The Comparative Distribution of Jewish Ability . . xli. 

J. Jacobs and I. Spielman. 

The Comparative Anthropometry of English Jews ... 75 


The Jewish Type, by Francis Galton, F.R.S. . . . Frmt. 

Distribution of Ability to face p. 41 

Graphic Curves of Anglo- Jewish Anthropometry ... 87 

Bra RoBKRT Pekl once said : " Two things alone defy th« power of the 
immortal gods — figares and tbe past." The Bcience or method of statistios, 
which deals with the paat by meana of figures, is raised by this dictum to a 
lofty eminence, which it by no means retains in the popular mind. By the 
majority of persons it is regarded as the most dismal part of the "dismal 
Bcience," and dislike easily leads to distrust. La statiiliqTiB toujoura varie ; 
hien fol qvii s'y tie, is the refrain of the doabters or, as they pat it, " etatis- 
tics will prove anything." As against the blind confidence of those who 
pin their faith to everything that takes the form of percentages, snch distrast 
fully justified. You cannot get out of statistics more material than yon put 
into them and very often the roogh eiperience which goes to form popular 
impressions is fnlty as accurate and inetrnctive as all the carsde of decimals. 
We learn as much from the statement that many Jews are light-haired as 
from the information that 36.4 per cent, are fair. And as regards accuracy 
the former may be based on a far wider rango of observation than the latter 
which might be deduced from the fact that 4 ont of II Jews were found 
to be fair. 

On the other hand, however, when we wish to compare one body of men 
with another, we are utterly in the dark without statistics. Whenever we want 
to discover, e.'j., whether Jews are longer lived than their neighbonrs, have 
more or less lunatics than the latter and so on, it is impossible to decide 
without definite no mbers to compare. And almost all questions of interest 
to Jews with which statistics can deal take this comparative torm. And, 
farther, when it is desired to determine how tar Jews have progressed or 
.0 results can be regarded as satiafaa- 

impresnons are often sufficient to determine the mere presence of any qnalitj 
among Jews, for all purposes of comparison recourse must be had to statis- 
tics for any trustworthy result. 

This is still more the case when the object of inyestigation is to discoyer 
the relation of cause and effect between two sets of phenomena. If a causal 
nexus is to be established, the most satisfactory method is that termed by 
logicians '' the method of concomitant variations " which may be ronghly 
summarised '* more or less of the cause, more or less of the effect." We 
can only determine this ''more or less" by the aid of the statistical method. 

To take an example. In the many discussions about the alleged evil 
effects of consanguineous marriage, the Jews are referred to by both parties 
in support of their riews. The assertion is often made and as often denied that 
Jews suffer more from deaf-mutism, idiocy, &c., owing to the fact that con- 
sanguineous marriages are more frequent among them. Yet until we know the 
proportion of consanguineous marriages among Jews and the proportion of the 
offspring of such marriages among Jewish deaf-mutes, &c., we cannot 
establish any causal connection between the two facts. The mere assertion 
that there are more such marriages among Jews and more of their results 
among the afflicted classes does not help us until we know how moch more. 
For if there is only the same proportion in the two cases, the relation of 
cause and effect is is by no means established. Changing the venue for a 
moment and applying Macaulay's well-known illustration, if there were 1 
per cent, red-haired Jews we should expect to find 10 per cent, of Jewish 
deaf-mutes red-haired. We could only assume a causal connection between 
'' erythrism '* and deaf- mutism if (say) 20 per cent, of Jewish deaf-mutes 
had red hair. Similarly, if 10 per cent of Jewish marriages are between 
relatives and 10 per cent of Jewish idiots, deaf-mutes, &c., were found to be 
the offspring of such marriages, it would only follow that consanguineous 
marriages, if equally prolific, had no effect on the production of deaf-mutism. 
It is clear, therefore, that the first stage in any such enquiry is to determine 
the proportion of consanguineous marriages. This I have attempted to 
determine for English Jews in the following manner. 

In 1876, Mr. Q. H. Darwin, son of the great naturalist, read a paper 
on marriage between first cousins before the Statistical Society and sum- 
marised his results in the Fortnightly Eeview for July of that year. 
Examining some marriage lists in the newspapers he observed that several 
occurred between persons of the same surname and on determining the pro- 
portion of these '^ same-name marriages" he found that they occurred in 
far larger numbers than could occur by chance. By circulars and other 
means Mr. Darwin calculated that of these same-name marriages 57 per 
cent, were between first cousins. Now, in marriage between first cousins the 
bride has the same name as the bridegroom only when she is the daughter 
of his father's brother, while there remain the daughters of his father's 
sisters and of -the maternal uncles and aunts who may likewise form 
first cousin marriages. It would thus seem that same-name marriages 
between first cousins form a fourth of such marriages. But there are less 
paternal than maternal uncles and more paternal aunts than maternal, 
because father and mother have to be subtracted from their respective 
families for the purposes of this inquiry. It follows, therefore, that same-name 
marriages between first cousins form less than a fourth of such marriages, and 
Mr. Darwin, by some very ingenious formula calculated that they form on 
an average only a fifth of all marriages between first cousins. If, therefore, 

in maltiplj th« namber ot same-D&me mftrriaftea by 285 (-'S7x5) we 
■honid get, on this method, the nnmber ot all marriaigea between firat 

Mr. Danrin applied his method to several classes of Englishmen witli 
the foUoTring results : 

Number Nomboc ftnd petoant- Calonlated pBroenti- 

SoiiroB. of age ot same-name age of all first 

Uarringes Harriagea. cooain Mairi^ei. 

Pall Mall Gatette odvta ... ISfiiS 282 1 25 2-54 

Bucke'B Landed Gcntrg .. 9,549 144 I'50 S-TG 

Eoglish and Iiisb Peerage 1,989 18 litiiousins 0-90 4-50 

Metropolitan Diatriat 83,165 — 0'66 1-fiO 

UrbaD DiatriotB 82,846 — 0-71 2-00 

Rural Diatriots 13,391 — 079 2-35 

In the case of the Peerage Mr. Darwin examined only the aam&-nania 
marriages between first cousins and muUiplied this at once by 5. His 
method is to some extent confirmed by his results which are what one would 
have antiuipated, the peerage intermarrying most, the landed gentry nest, 
then the upper tuiddle-clasB and so on. 

It occurred to me that it mould be desirable to apply the same method 
to English Jews, and, with the aid of afriend, I examined ail the marriages 
contained in the Jewish Chronicle frnm the beginning ot the New Series in 
1869 to the present time with ibe following results: 

Nnmber Numberscd percent^ Calculated percont- 

of age of aamo name age of nil first 

Javinh Chronicle advts. MnrriagoB. MarriiigeB. Donsia Marriagei. 

April,, IB09— Doo. 1682 1,S89 42 !'C4 7-.')2 

Thus, it would appear that of all marriages between English Jews, 7} per 
cent, are between first cousins, a proportion more than half as large again as 
that occDrring among the aristocracy, and five times as great as the proportion 
calculated for the inhabitants of London. The result completely jnstides the 
popular impression that Jews marry among their own families more than the 
rest of the population, and, if confirmed by wider indnction, may serve as 
the basis of investigation into that mnch vexed question, the effects of 
marriage between near kin. 

Before, however, accepting even this provisional result, it is desirable 
to take into acconut an element in the calculation, which Mr. Darwin con- 
sidered that he conld neglect in his investigations, but which may not be so 
unimportant in the case of English Jews. Finding from one of the Regis- 
trar- Qmeral's Reports that one in every 7S Englishmen is named timitb, 1 
in 76 Jones, 1 in 115 Williams, and so on, Mr. Darwin calculated that the 
chance of a Smith marrying a Smith was represented by the square of y'-j or 
■ fl a 'sa , that of a Jones-Jones marriage j-t'th ^'^^ ^° ^^ ' ^^^ adding together 
ail these fractions, the chance of a same-name marriage occurring was lound 
to be only one out ot a, thousand marriages. This Mr. Darwin neglected, 
BS he did not profess accuracy to the second place of decimals, and, besides, 
he only considered that b7 per cent of same-name marriages were between 
first consins, the rest being between more distant relations. 

Bnt among Jews it is a familiar fact that surnames are fewer than 
among the general population, and it remains to be coDnidered bow many of 
the 42 same-name marriages in the Jewish Chronicle weredne to the (jreal^r 
chances of such unions owing to the paucity of surnames among b^ngli-'h 
Jews. Taking the 4,720 names contained in the Reports of the Board of 
the B oard of Gnardians for 1880, the Jews' Hot^WaV \ot \%n%,»aA Sw* 

ADglo-Jeiriah AModation for 1877-8 (London, Birmingham, LiTerpooT^ 
Manchester only), I foand the most popular names among English Jeira 
be the following ; 

L«v7 - ^ , 

Joflc^h >...„.„ 

IiBse and iHaoa ... 

PEUlii - 

AbrohuD and Abn 

SuDael „ 

SolumoD and Holomotu 
Jacob and Juobs 

1 „ M 
I „ EG 

1 „ 6B 
1 „ 6G 
1 „ 71 
1 „ 81 

Woolf aad Wolff 

Bamet and Baraett..,. 

Hjam BndHvami _ 


SymiLa and Eymans .. 

The propoFtioae giren are too high for English Jews in general, 
jaaay names recnr in the three lists ; the lists themselves are not repr»> 
eentative of the whole commnnity in point of names, and we should for the 
present pnrpose distingDish between doable forms, like Isaac and Isaacs . Bat 
the names, on the other hand, are drawn from the very class who are likely to 
advertisetheirmarriagesin the/e^it'i.t^O^roiucfe, and for that reason I acoept 
the above estimate in default of any other. It may be added that the order of 
most frequent names and approximately the proportions are nearly the same 
in the longest of the lists — Uiat of the Jews' Hospital Report. With regard 
to one name the proportion is still too high. There are special reasons why 
the name " Cohen " should occur in the reports of two of the above ioslitu- 
tions in more than the nsaal proportion, I am ioclined to take the 
proportion given by the Report of the Anglo-Jewish Association, viz., 1 
in 30, as more near to the troth. In the largest list of contemporary Jewish 
names with which I am acquainted — Lippe's BibUographisches Lexicon-^ 
the Cohens, even with the addition of the Cohns and the Kohns, make np 
•nty 1 03 out of the 4,600 names, which nonld give a proportion of abon^ 
1 in 45 for Jews in general. i 

Accepting the proportions in the above list, we find that with-^ 
oat aoy intermairiage a Cohen-Cohen marriage would occur in everfi 
900 marriages if we accept ^ as the proportion of Cohens to th* 
general Jewish population. One marriage out of l,0i4 would be 
between persons of the name of Davis, one out of 1,225 between Levys ; 
there wonld be in the natural course of events one Joseph-Joseph marriage 
out of every 2,209 marriages and so on. Bamming up the squares ^^ 



that about 5 same-named 


marriages wonld occur by chance in every 1,000 Jewish marriages, and, 
therefore, about 8 in the 1,589 examined in this investigation. This wonld 
leave only S4 marriages to be accounted for by the method employed above, 
and we shonld have instead of the figures above, 84 same-name marriages out 
of l,B81,i.e., 2'13 per cent, and, therefore, only 6*07 per cent, of first consin 
marriages, the paucity of surnames among Jews causing a difference of one 
and half per cent in the percentage of first cousin marriages. 

But against this correction we have to set other factors which in all proba- 
bility connterbalance it. It frequently happens among Jews that two brothen- 
adopt entirely different surnames, and any union between their offspring 
would fail to appear among same-name marriages. Further it has become 
recently the fashion for English Jews to remedy the paacity of snrnames by 
MdopiJag otheTB of similar initial, a fashion satirised by the dramatist in 

a JevriBh character " Isidore Montmorenci." It is probable, 
triftt the name '' Moees " would be bigher up in tbe above list if all tbose 
wbo could rigbtfiilly claim it btd been added to the number of thoee who 
Btill retain it. Tbe children of two brotbers, one of whom had adopted a 
varioDB reading of hie name would therefore not come under the' category of 
HBine-name marriages. In the ten Tolnmee oftheJeiaieh Ohronich examined 
by myself, I noticed 4 BUch marriages of the " MoseB-SIontmorenci " type, 
and donbtlesB others escaped my notice by the very nature of tbe case. 
Supposing a couple more to occur in the remaining four Tolumea examined 
by my friend and only two more of Dames entirely different to turk uneeen 
in all tbe fonrteen volumea of tbe new series, and we would have eight 
names missing from the list of same-aame marriages owing to change of 
name to counterbalance tbe eight which might occur by chance owing to 
tbe paucity of sumamps. 

I am inclined, therefore to reject the correction which seems at £rst 
sight due to the few Bumames current among Jews, eBpeciaJIy as the 
fractions which give the corrected estimates are probably too large as an 
examination of the 4S names would show. Only 14 of these marriages are 
between persons with names from the above list, tbe remaining 28 having 
more nnfamiliar names, and only 8 are from the first 10 names. Further, we 
only assume that 57 per cent of these same-name marriageB are between first 
cousins and this constant is by no means certain and may be too low. Tbe 
percentage of first coasin marriages as originally determined may therefore 
be still retained and we may say that of every two hundred marriages among 
English Jews of tbe upper and middle classes fifteen are between first oouBins. 

It by no meauB follows that tbe same proportion holds for all the JewB 
in England. The marriages advertised in the Jeviisli Ohronkle are only 
about one-third of all Jewish marriages in England as given in tbe Reports 
of tbe Eoard of Depnties. Tbe above conclasions only bold, thereforp, for 
the " upper third " of the Jews in England, the original " English colony " 
as we may term them. What may be tbe amount of intermarriage in tbe 
large " foreign contingent," which, probably form the remaining two-tbirds 
it ia impossible to say, without consulting the registers of tbe Great Syna- 
gogue. I merely wish to guard against tbe precipitate conclusion that is 
likely to be drawn from the above investigation, that all tbe Jews in 
England marry their first cousias to the extent of 71 per cent, in all mar- 
riages. It is needless to add the caution that still less do these resnlts 
apply for Jews universally. 

It would be well if statisticians adopted the custom of pointing ont the 
weak links in any long and complex chain of reasoning. In the above 
argument it bas been assumed that 57 per cent, or over a half of the same- 
name marriages, i.e., 24 out of the 42, were between first cousins. This 
assumption has been adopted from Mr. Darwin and is by no means thoroughly 
substantiated by him, but no method was seen of checking it. At tbe worst, 
however, any inaccuracy here on Mr. Darwin's part would only alter the 
absolute percentages ; it would not alter tbe relative frequency of first cousin 
marnages among the middte-clBBs Soglisb Jews compared with the remaining 
sections of Englishmen examined by Mr. Darwin. As has been vaguely 
conjectured but never hitherto proved, English Jews have the largest number 
of anch marriages among all classes of the population. 

We may now pass on to consider the causes which make consaagui- 
neooi marriagee bo frequent among the Jews. Ia ^^^ ^KA&a t-?^-, 


while tlie small size of the Jewish commnnities would limit the 
choice, their mignUarj habits Mid the .frequent arriyal of fresh blood, 
in the shape of yictims of perseeotion and of wandering merchants 
or scholars, might hare modified the tendency. And, later on, the 
institntion *of the Bchadchan^ or {professional matchmaker, would tend 
to break throogh the family bonds ; it is said that in Poland a 
young Jew often marries a girl he has ney» preyiously seen by this 
means. Unfortunately, the genealogical tables of mediseyal Jews rarelj 
giye the name or family of the mothers, and one cannot say how far con- 
sanguineous marriages were then frequent. The family Ghirondi, to which 
Moses Nachmonides, Leyi ben Qerson (who married his first cousin), and 
8imon Duran belonged, seem to haye married ** in and in" (Conf. 8tein- 
Bchneidw, Oat. Bod., col 2805 — 2810), with excellent results, so far as 
intellectual proficiency was concerned. 

The causes of intermarriage were probably : the absence of any such 
prohibitions as Mother Church imposed,* the existence of small communities 
scattered about, the rare communion betwe^i the sexes, and, aboye all, the 
absence of any ideal of pre-nuptial loye. It has been said that a shy man 
usually marries his first cousin as she is the only maiden who will propose 
to him ; and towards his womankind, at least, the Jew was, up to the pre- 
sent century, peculiarly shy and reseryed. Among English Jews seyeral 
additional causes may be conjectured for intermarriage, which render it pro- 
bable that the rate among them is higher than among their Continental 
brethren. The absence of the Schadchan would preyent much intermixture 
of blood between dififerent parts of the country, and especially in the many 
small communities dotted oyer England. Their general wealth would bring 
into play the motiye of ^' keeping the money in the family," and their insu- 
lar position and feelings preyented frequent marriages with foreign Jewish 
immigrants. And further, the tendency to '' shoolism," or the limitation 
of acquaintanceship to the members of one's own synagogue, has only lately 
been broken through by such centralifiing institutions as the United Synagogue, 
the Board of Quardians, and the Anglo- Jewish Association. Owing to these 
causes, peculiar to the <' English colony," there is some probability that 
consanguineous marriages are more frequent among Jews in England than 
on the Continent. 

From treating of causes one naturally passes on to discuss effects. 
On this point a remarkable change of opinion has occurred of late years, at 
least in England. From 1860 onwards a general impression preyailed, due 
AS much to Darwinian prepossessions in fayour of cross-breedmg as to 
the researches of a few French doctors, likeBoudin and Deyay, that consan- 
guineous marriages giye rise to all the ills that flesh is heir to. But owing 
to the appearance of Mr. Huth's aible and exhaustiye treatise (T^ Mar^ 
riage of Near Kin, Churchill, i875), the pendulum of opinion has swung 
joyer to the opposite side in England. It is now yery generally considered 
that near kinship in marriage has no eyil effect per se, but intensifies any 

* It may be neeessary to point ont that, acoordinc: to Rabbinic law, marriage between 
^nt oonsing, between uAcle and niece, and even between step-brothers and sisters is fully 

Sermitted, and that between uncle and niece regarded as particularly praiseworthy. 
Carriage between step-brothers and sisters was, however, objected to by Palestinian autho- 
jritieB (Jer. Talm. Jebamoth. ii. 4) and, though legal, has rarely occurred {S^her 
ChMsiaim, § 879). On the otner hand the union of auat and nephew is prohibited, and 
J ewish law allows of no dispensation in this or any other oase (Z. Franks. Grvndlinien 
d0f motaitch4ahnud%ichen /'herechU^ ISSO, p. xviiL) 

dutbetie Uinl Uimt nar oocnr in the fsmilj. If one partj to the marriage 

be Bcrofaloua, e.g., and the other not, the children maj inherit a ecrofaloan 
taint, but not more than if the Bcrofalona eubjeot had married a Eponse of 
entire!; different family. If, however, both the coueins have a Bcrofoloua 
diatheais, it is thought that the ofi'spring are more Hkelj to be afHicted with 
Mrofnls, and iu more intense forma than in the case of tvio persona of 
Bcrofoloaa tendencies, hat of different families. And of coarse there ia a 
greater chance of two firet cou^ina having the xame hereditary taint. 

Both in the earlier and later fitagea of the controversy the Jewa have 
beeo appealed to by both sidea. M. Boudin pointed triamphantly to tbe 
larger proportion of idiots and deaf-matea amoajf Jews. Mr. Hnth inquires 
how many of thexe are known to be due to conBangnineona marriage)<, and 
points with no less triumph to the superior vitality and cosmopolitanism of 
Jewn, and ioBtanccs the Ghetto as a proof of their euperior ability to with- 
stand the worBt aanitary conditions. In all the heat of controversy, how- 
ever, not a aingle fact of atatistical valne haa been arrived at. Mr. 
Huih rightly reJRctx, ae Oesterlen had done before him, the aotitary inveHti- 
gation of M. Boudin ae to tbe case of three congenital Jewiah deaf mutes 
alleged to be at tbe Paris aBjlum. And, even if this had been aobetantiated, 
it could have been of no argumentative valae owing to the smallneas of the 
number and also since the percentage of consanguineous marriages among 
French Jews was not even guesfied at. It is clear that no conclusion can 
be drawn till the proportion of conaangaineoua marriages ia known with 
tolerable certainty. 

Even when this is known there is a further consideration to be taken 
into account before trustworthy condasion a can be drawn. Though we know 
the proportion of coasanguineoue marriages among Jews and the proportion 
of congenital cases among Jewish deaf-mutea, idiots,&c., we could not be cer- 
tain of any resolts till we knew whether the number of children springing 
from snch unions was more or leas than, or the aame as, the average number 
of children to a Jewish marriage. If, e.g., the average fertility of consan- 
qnineona marriages was only half as much as that of ordinary Jewiah mar- 
riages, the same proportion of congenital deaf-matea as of allied marriages 
woald indicate double as many deaf-mutes as among non-allied marriagea. 
And if, on the other hand tbe fertility of oonsangaineous marriages among 
Jews waa foand to be doable that of the rest of the Jewish population, 
twice the percentage of Jewish deaf-matea might easily he found in oor 
asytama without any prejudice to marriage between near kin. 

In order to examine whether sterility was at all frequent in Jewish 
ooDfaiiguJneoQB marriages as is frequently alleged, I instituted inqniries 
and obtained information of i>2 snch uniona. Uf theae only three were 
sterile, and omitting three cases of recent marriage we get a proportion of 
5.4 per cent of aterile marriages. Now, Dr. Matthewa Duncan in his 
sUndard work, Fteviidily, Ferlility, and Sterility (Edinbnrgh, U)66} gives 
tbe average percentage of sterile marriagea as bigh as 16.3 (p. 1&3) and 
it is clear, even Irom such small numbers, that Jewish allied marriages can- 
not be considered sterile. And a further examination of some of the cases 
seemed to show tliat the marriages brought to ray notice were remarkably 
fertile. In SI famiHes, in which the number ofchlldren living were reported 
to me (inclading the three sterile cases mentioned above and two in which 
the wife died in the first year of marriage) there were 144 children, 
beaidea six other oases reported as having " laigft fsn^ir '\:Ss&^«tc^^ 


give an iTeraga of 4.6 to b firet-coaain marri&ge. Now, if EngliBh Jai 

follow the law obBerred to hold la the cane of their Continental brethren' 
" lower birth-rate, lower marriage-rate and lower death rate " — the mjengti 
Jewish family would not be more than theaveragefamiljof Englishmen calculi 
ted bj Major Graham (" Cenana of ISGl," vol. iii , page xi.) to be2.2S anct 
the fertility of flrat-consin marriages would be doable that of othera amon^ 
Engligh Jews, though this ia probably somewhat too high. Sir. Hath 
noticed similar greater fertility in anch caaea (p. 244) and it is probably 
true of all marriagea between first consina. 

We are at last in a position to estimate the chances of finding the 
children of Jewish con sin-marriages in any collection of Engliah Jews. Wft 
have aeen that there are seven-and-a-half per cent, of auch marriages and 
that they are probably half as fertile asara as other Jewish marriages. W9 
ahould, therefore, conclude that 11.26 per cent, of Kagliah Jewa 
are the off-spring of first cousin marriagea. Botigbly speaking, we- 
Bhonld expect to find a son or danghter of first cousina in any aasembly of 
ten Jewish yonng men or women. It ought not, therefore, to snrpriae as if 
we fonnd one-tenth of Jewish deaf-mntes or idiots to be the ofispring of 
cognate marriages. The Visitation Committee of the United Synagogoe, 
I am informed, have found it impoasible to diaoover the origin of many of 
the lunatica nndorthoir oharge. But Dr. Schontheil, Dirootor of the Jews' 
Deaf and Dumb Home ia Walmer Road, informs me that three oat of ths 
24 children under his charge are the children of first cousina. This 
exactly the number we shonld have anticipated finding in any chance sel 
tion of Jewiah children, and the tact rather tends to show the harmleaaness 
of conBanguineons marriages with regard to deaf-mutism than the opposite, 
especially as people with large families are more likely to exile the afflicted 

But incidentally in collecting the evidence as to the fertility of theae 
marriages, I glesned a few facts which aeem to tall in an opposite direction 
aa regards their healthful neaa. Of the aixty-two families six were afflicted 
by the presence ot a lunatic or a deaf mute or both, a mnch larger proportion 
than conld occur among Jewa in general, where only about one family in forty 
ia similarly afflicted. This might of course bedne to the fact that jnatthoaa 
first-conaio marriages which have resulted in any evil results are likely to 
strike the memory first, though caro was taken not to direct inquiry to thia 
point at all but only to the queation of fertility. In several cases, again, ngli- 
neaa waa reported to be marked in theoffspring of the marriagea under diacuS' 
aion and we should probably learn to look npon waat of physical beauty a8 
a sign of bodily degeneration. The quality is, however, a " aubjective"on8 
from the reporter'a point of view, and ia at any rate not confined to cousan- 
gnineons marriagea. I also observed that the practice of marrying " in and 
in " ran in particular families (six families including thirteen firat- 
conain marriages) and seemed to paas on to the next generation, 
for there are no less than four " double first consin marriagea," aa wo 
might term them, the son of first cousina marrying his first cousin. 
Finally, 1 may add that in thirty-five marriagea in which the saniames of 
both parties were known, six were aame-name marriagea, being about theeame 
proportion assumed in the previon; calculation. All these facts are of 
extremely little value except as hints for fntare inquiries. The amallneas 
of the numbera eitamiaed roba them of an; statiatical value, and I must 
Jeave iiie ^aestion, for the pressnt at least, ai open as I fonnd it. 


An apology ifl perhaps due to the reader for leading him over so ardnons ^ 
path to 80 uDsatisfuctory a goal. But until we haye much more definite know- 
ledge of Jewish yital and other statistics in England, it is impossible to 
arrive at any more certain results. Bash conclusions are the bane of sta- 
tistics, and have led to most of their disrepute. Caution is specially desir- 
able in the present case where any decision as to Jewish consanguineous 
marriages would, owing to their frequency, be crucial on the merits of the 
general question whether such marriages are harmful or not. 

How important such a question is for English Jews may be seen from 
the fact that probably seven-and-a-half, and certainly six per cent, of 
ail marriages between native English Jews are between first cousins, and 
that nearly one-tenth of all English Jews are the offspring of consanguineous 
marriages. * 




One of the most firmly rooted ideas in the popular mind is that all 
Jews are rich, an impression that has given rise to the phrase ''rich as a 
Jew," which is current in all the tongues of civilization. Led by a fallacy 
akin to the old mercantile theory that all wealth is money, the peoples of 
Europe appear to hare argued that because some Jews deal in money, all 
Jews are wealthy Perhaps, one of the causes of the idea has been that the 
Jewish poor have never been a burden to the general population but have 
been entirely supported by the Jews themselves. 

Whatever the origin of the idea, there can be little doubt of itn 
erroneousness in so far as it implies any wide diffusion of wealth among the 
members of the Jewish race. Indeed, if we choose to regard them as a 
nation, it is probable that they are the poorest of all that can claim to be 
civilized ; that it Mr. Gififen were to capitalise their wealth and distribute it 
among the seven millions of Jews, they would dispute with Ireland and 
KuFsia for the lowest place on the scale of wealth. A glance from China 
to Peru will speedily substantiate this statement. It will be at once allowed 
that the 600,000 Jews living in Africa and Asia are poor from a European 
standpoint. The four and a half millions who dwell in E&st Europe are in 
the vast majority only just raised above pauperism, while a goodly propor- 
portion are sunk below even that level. Among the three million Russian 
Jews only two or three names, like those of Gunzburg, Poliakofifand Brodsky 
rise about the general level of hard-working poverty. So that if we are to 
find the Jews who are to serve as the type of riches we must seek for them 
in Western Europe and America. 

Turning, then, to the more favourably situated Jews in these lands, one 
might ahk an imaginary opponent to point out the number of millionaires 
that are popularly supposed to abound among the Jews. In the list of 
American millionaires which recently went the round of the newspapers from 
the New York Heraldihere occurred but one Jewish name (that of Seligman 
Bros.) and he would have, therefore, to confine himself to this side of the 
Atlantic. On the Continent, besides the Eothschilds, he mieht point to 
the names ot BischoflFs-heim, Bleichroder, Camondo, Hirsch, Konigswarter, 
Uppenheim, Pereire, Poliakoff, Reinach, Stern, Springer, Todesco, Warsch- 
auer, and it is doubtful whether more than five names could be added from 
England. Twenty millionaires, or rather firms who can act on the money 
market with millionaire force is not such a great proportion for seven millions 
of persons to include. 

And, to counterbalance any superiority at the top of the scale, it is 
almost certain that Jews everywhere have a larger proportion of persons 
dependent on charity than their neighbours. In 1861 the pauper Jews of 
Prussia numbered 6* 4 6 per cent of the whole Jewish population, whereas the 
percentage for the general population was 4.19 and Prussia was then one 
of the poorest European States (Legoyt Immunites p. 34). In 1877 the 
Jeivibh population of Amsterdam was 32,500 of whom no less than 15,000 
were aid*d to exint by the charity of their coreligionists (Jewish Chronicle 
arch 8tb, 1878). Between 1875 and 1879 a benevolent society at 

FnrUi BMiBted no less than 33,656 poor JewUh travellers and Furtti is bfi 

no moans on the higliway of Europe (" Allg. Zeitg. Jn<]. May 11, 1880." 
Lit question Jii'ive p. 16). Theee facts and others like them gire some 
hinta of the aiartunt of poverty among the Jews, 

From the details as to the social condiLion of the Jews of London 
which I am about to lay before the reader, it will be seen that the 
phrnse " rich as a Jew " involves one of the popnlar fallacies in destroy- 
I log which statistics perhaps do their most nueful work. London is 
probably the richest Jewish city in the world ; in the recent move- 
I ment in favour of the Btisstan Jews it contributed a larger sum 
than any in the world, and it contains a third of Jenish millionaires. If, 
therefore, we cou'd calculate the average income of a London Jew, we 
flhoald know the highest tidpmark of prosperity towhteh Jews, as a body, 
I have attained. The task may seem nnattainable and the detailn incalcul- 
able. Bnt " it is the beauty and gloiy of the statistical method," as Prof. 
Leone Levi says Trith all the enthusaiam of a specialist " that it enables us 
to calculate the seemingly incalculable. With this instrument at hand and 
with a good grip of the teaching of common experience, that which appears 
a dream or a guess to the uninitiated becomes to the mathematician and 
' statistican a simple, natural, and reliable result" (Brit. Ass. Rep. 1881, 
' p. ii73). Without venturing all these lengths, we may hope lo give some 
I definitenesB to the vagae ideas at present entertained even among London 
Jews themselves as to their social position, and to obtain resalta which may 
be as certain and reliable as the meagre data at hand permit. 

I must premise that I assume the Jewish population of London 
to be about 46,000 (in 1882) for reasons deduced from the burial returns and 
hereafter to be laid at some length before the reader. Hiiw many of these 
46,000 are rich ? We could obtain a maximum limit if we knew how many 
Jewish names were contained in each a work of reference as Kelly's 
Commercial Direolonj. It wonld then be desirable to narrow our search so 
89 to find the number of these who were rich enough to live " up West " ; 
this wonld be approximately given if we could ascertain the nnmber of 
Jewish names in snch a " Court Directory " as Webster's Royal Red Book. 
But the former work of reference contains some 140.000 names in the 
edition for 1883 recently issued, and the latter has some 35,000 addresses in 
the edition of 1880, which was the only one easily aoceBsible to me. It was 
cle-arly impracticable to find what we want by g'ing through all the 
175,000 names, and in default of abetter method of asceriaining the number 
of Jews included in those lists, the following plan was hit npon. 

In the preceding " study " I ascertained the proportion of the moat 
popular Jewish names in England to the general Jewish popuUtion, so far 
as tfaia could bo ascertained from lists ol contributors to charities, Now, if 
we find the number of Jews with one of these names in any list and multi- 
ply it by the proportion which that name bears to all Jewish names, we 
should get the whole number of Jewish names if the proportion were 
accurate. Thus, if we found 25 Cohens in a list, and there are thirty 
English Jews to every Cohen, there should be 750 Jews in the said list. 
Even if the proportion were not quite accurate, and we took a number 
of naraea and treated them the same way, some ol' tho results might be too 
high and some too low ; but the average wonld in all probability approxi- 
mate closely to the troth. I have applied this method to the above two 
works, and also to Kolly'a Cuurl- Z>iiw;()nj,"«\vw\i issffli^ \a Xn^is^t. V 


60,000 names all persons living in a private house in the North and South 
districts as well as West. The resalts were as follows : 

■KT Proportional Total number given by the method in 

JName. Multiplicand. Webster. Kelly Court. Kelly Commercial 

Benjamin 130 1,690 3,380 4,680 

Cohen 80 1,200 1,890 3,600 

Emanuel 130 1,170 1,170 2,860 

Igaac(8) 62 1,456 2,288 4,472 

Jacob(8) 78 1,794 4,446 9,984 

Joseph 47 1,176 1,911 2,303 

Levy 86 1,365 1,750 4,760 

Marks 135 1,485 3,240 8,910 

Nathan 107 2,140 3,638 4,173 

Bolomon 68 1,188 1,360 4,818 

Average 1,466 2,507 5,056 

It will be observed that some of the nam?s, as Emanael, give too low 
resalts owing probably to their being too largely represented in the charity 
lists ; others, again, like Jacobs, give too high nnmbers, possibly for the oppo- 
site reason. Bat these shoa*d coanterbalance one another, and we may accept 
the average resalts as very fair approximations. It seetus, then, that there 
are some 5,000 Jews in bnsiness in the City and elsewhere, and aboat 2,500 
who have private hoases, of whom 1,500 live in the West ot London, and appear 
in a Court Directoij. Of the latter aboat 300 families are probably those of 
professional men and retired merchants. The remaining 1,200 are doabtless 
nch merchants who are also inclnded in the OommercM Directory. The 
1,000 additional names contained in Kelly's Court Directory, beyond the 
1 ,500 of the Bed Booh, may also be sab-divided into 200 professional and 
retired families living in the North, Soath and East districts, and 800 well- 
to-do merchants of those neighbourhoods, who also appear in the Oomm&rcial 

Taming to the other end of the social scale, we are fortunately enabled to 
speak with some precision, owing to the admirably compiled statistics of the 
Jewish Board of Qnardians. At the end of 1881 there were (excluding the 
emigrants of the year) 2,118 '' cases " on the books who had applied durinic 
the year, 234 being chronic and 1,884 capual, the whole nnmbering 7,911 
individuals. Besides these, there are many other poor and afflicted persons 
of the Jewish persuasion assisted by other institutions in London, as the 
following list will show : 

Spanish and Portngnese Board of GuardiMis 1,296 

Visitation Committee, United Synagogue 350 

Hospital and Orphan Asylum (including 100 Apprentices) ... 315 

^kgeu JM eeoy ••• ... ... ... ... ... ••• ••. ... y^ 

Blind Institution 54 

dewisn xxomei*. ... ... ... ... ..• ••. ««• ••• o^ 

Deaf &d Dumb Asylum 24 

"Hand-in-Hand'' Asylum 21 

Distressed Widows 18 

Portuguese Orphans 12 

Russian Refugees added in 1S82 ., ,. ... 947 

xouaia.. ... •«• ... ... ... ... 0|Xoo 

We have, therefore, a grand total of 11,099 persons, who are aided by the 
charity of the remaining ^5,000 London Jews to earn jast a bare subsist- 
ence. But of these latter there are a large number, probably over 10,000, 
10 have themselves been clients of the Board of Gaardians withia recent 
119. From 1869 to 1881^ there were 9,471 " cases " who did not apply for 


a whole year, an^ enbtracting 5,632 caaes who Wt London daring the same 

period we have 3,839 caaes in London who abstained from applying for 
some time. Of these we may assume that 2,o00 families scattered 
over the thirteen years, have managed to a7oid making use of its help any 
more. In these we have a link connecting the pauper clashes with those 
who get their names into the compiUtioDS of Messrs. Kelly and Co. 
It is difBcult to say how many of these get on sufficieniiy to have their 
names orer their shop doors and this difGcu'ty lorins the weak link in our 
chain of argument, but assuminjt that 500 are included in the 3,000 
" remanets " in the Commercial Dltealonj and we have another 2,1^00 
families not poor enough to need the aid of the Board of Guardians and not 
rich enough to have a shop for themselves ; if we now add 1 OOU individuals 
employed as servants and assistants in the f),500 families above poverty we 
may proceed to add up our results. Before doing bo we have to reduce the 
7,500 families above pauperism to indisidnals. After careln! consideration 
I have adopted the following fignres as most snitable to the varioos classei, 
the " profetistonal " class often including barristers, schoolmasters and 
families wiihout a father at the head, the middle classes marrying earlier 
than the upper and the lower marrying as early hnt losing more children than 
the middle-class. The 46,000 Jews or London (1882) may be now analysed in 
Bomewhat minute detail as follows ; 

Cl«.. PoaitioQ. P>«Dilie,. ^i;*^"^^."- Individaals. 

A. ProfBBiional A rolirad living W. 800 4 1,200 

B. Kieh MerohanU, ditto. I.SOO 4-0 5,400 

C. Meiohants with private hongss, 

N., S. andB BOO i-b 3,fi(l0 

D. PiDfessioDB uid retired, ditto 200 4 800 

E. Sfaopkeepece, Ac 3,000 b 15,000 

F. Petty tradera recently on 

Board of Guardians 8,000 4 8,00T 

G. Servaota and Aaeistants — — 1,000 

H. Beard of Guardians, CaBQBla... 1,884) ,„,, 

I. DiUo, Chronic... 234 J ~ ''"' ^ 

J. Other psaperg and afflicted... — — 5,242 

K. RuBsian Refngeea — — V47 

Total 4G,100 

Of these items H — K are certain, A — D probable, and only E — G abont 
which there can be any serious departure from the actual state of the 

We may now venture to conjecture, within the limits imposed by this 
table, the grosa income of the Jewish population in London. Uf the 1,500 
families included in A and B tnere are certainly not more thau lOU having 
on an average £10,000 a year, about 50 of whom are included in the 78 Jewish 
brokers of the City of London, another 30 being great merchants, and the 
remaining SO families being thoie who gained their wealth in past genera- 
tions. Some of these would have more and otbers less than £10,000, but 
this would certainly include the average. Tbe rest of the following sugges- 
tions will, 1 fancy, approve themselves withoot remark, though strictly 
speaking class G need not have been included as tbe msjurity of them are 
paid out of tbe incomes of the classes above them : 

A A H J too at £10,000— £i,fOO,000 G. 1,000 at £30— £30,000 

a..a D. J 1^4(10 ^^ 1,000— l,400,«0 H. 1,884 „ 60— 04,2JO 

C. BOO „ 600— 400,000 1,4 K. 8,433 10 — 34,230 

D, aoo „ ^6(^- ;iO,ooo 

B. s,Doo „ 200— aoii.ono tt^uA ... s&^'.V!& 


This would give an average of £82 per head for the whole Jewish popula- 
tion of London. Whether this is greater or less than the average for the 
g'eneral inhabitants of Inner London I am unable to say. For the United 
' Kingdom the average income per head is £33, but this counts in the Irish 
cottier and the Soffolkshire farm-hand, and is clearly no fair criterion. 
More instructive information is afforded by a less minute classification , as 
follows : 

Class. Sub-classes. Numbers. Percentage. Average Income. 

Upper A. B. 6,600 14*6 £367 

Middle CD. B. 19,400 42-2 54 

Lower F. G. 9,000 19-6 26 

Pauper H. I.J. K. 11,000 23-6 12 

Three points come out clearly from this table which to a certain extent con- 
firm the preceding investigation by their evident agreement with the real 
iacts of the case : (1). The great gap between the averaj^e income of upper 
class London Jews and that of the middle class indicates there is really 
nothing answering to a middle class among Jews. A Jew is either rich or 
poor, generally the latter ; he is rarely content with a moderate competence. 
(2). The fact that one Jew out of every four is a pauper is merely putting 
the actual figures of the Board of Guardians and the remaining 
charities into other words. It seems to show that the concomi* 
tant intensity of wealth and poverty, recently expatiated upon by 
Mr. George, occurs also among Jews, with whom the principle, 
" the greater the wealth the greater the poverty," appears Hkewise 
to hold good. At the same time it must be remembered that the 
clientele of the Board of Guardians cannot be regarded as paupers in the 
ordinary sense of the word. Only the 234 chronic cases fully deserve 
that name. (3). Finally, the large number included in the ** middle " class, 
and the comparatively small percentage of the lower super-pauper class 
bears eloquent testimony to the industry, prudence, and perseverance of the 
ordinary Jew. Though he may not make himself rich, he will rarely fail to 
make himself independent. 

There remains a process to be gone through with the above figures which 
is specially needful in a case where so much has been a matter of speculation. 
There is a process known to school-boys by which the result of a sum is 
" proved " by being arrived at by some other method of calculation. It 
remains to "prove" the above calculations in this sense, at least with 
regard to the numbers occupying the different stations of life. As for the 
average income of the London Jew, nothing more can be offered than the 
above calculation which, rough as it is, is sufficient to prove that London 
Jews, at least, are not as rich as Jews are generally supposed to be. 

We have assumed that there are some 1,500 Jewish families in London 
living in the Western districts who are wealthy. Taking the seat-roll of 
the synagogues in those districts we have the following number of gentle- 
men's seats : Central, 343, Berkeley Street, 329, Bayswater, 317, West End, 
213, St. John's Wood, 15' ►, Western, 150, Maiden Lane, 98, and if we 
assume that 200 of the 277 Yeliidim of the Spanish and Portuguese Syna- 
gogue live west of Temple Bar, we have a total of 1,802 seatholders. Not 
all of these are wealthy, though the majority probably are, and if we 
remember that there is a growing class of (foreign) wealthy Jews who con- 
nect themselves with no synagogue, and that some of the families under 
(seass/on have ladies at thehe&d, it m\\ be allowed that the estimate of 1,500 


derireil Trom the Roi/al Ped Boulnaa a nffic! en t1y dose approximation. They 
caimot b« aa many as I,ISO0, and on the other hand one finds in the various 
charity lista of the community an " iunur circle " of some 600 naitiei whicK 
are inclnJed in nearly all of them, and we have thns a msximtim and mini- 
mnni limit. The " upper fifteen hundred " of London .lews is rather an over- 
statement, than an under-estimate I'or the wealthy Jewish families of the 

Turning to the opposite quarter of the compass we can get aoine idea 
of the nnmher of London Jews who live in the city and eaHlward from the 
bnriat returns of the United Sjnagogue, Of the 1,01 i intermenta which 
were conducted by itsoftiaialB during- lRS2,no less than 781 or 77 per cent. 
came from the Eastern or East Central districla. In the preceding estimate 
the lower middle, lower and panper classes (E to K) who would in the 
majority of cases live in these districts, have hean calcniated to number 
£5,000 or 76 per cent., a coincidence on which, however, too much atresa 
need not be laid as the one eatimntH ia for all Loadoa Jews and the other 
only for the large body of Jews (87 ref cent, of the total nnmher) whose 
dead are buried by the United Synagogue. Owing to the absence of equally 
elaborate retuma for all the pynago«nes no comparison can be made with 
the Jewish inhabitanis for the Western diatrlcts ihongh the United Syna- 
gogue returns suggest a population of about 6j2S0 individuals in these 
qnarters of London, which with the Eeform, Spanish and Porlngnese, 
Maiden Lane and Western SynagogusB woald leave room for the 6,600 well- 
to-do JeWB whom we have calculated to live "up West." 

The figures collected tor the lower and pauper classes are at once con- 
firmed by, and explain, the large number ot charity (nnerala which appear to 
have puzzled the Burial Committee of ihe United Synagogue for some time. 
During the four years, 1879 to 1883, the average percentage of charity 
fnnerula was as high as 44 per cent. Now the claases F to K which 
usnally consist of past and present clients of the Itoard of Guardians make 
np 20,000 out of the Jewish population of London, or a little over 43 per 
cant. The approximation is close enough to put to llight the doubt which 
haa hitherto existed as to the real poverty of the applicants for such funerals. 
Whether the percentage of " second class funerals," about 16 per eeal., ia 
equally well explained by a knowledge that the lower middle class form 
'6'^ 5 or th« whole is not so clear. Jews regard burial as a communal duty 
and often claim it aa a right instead of asking for it as a pririlege. 

But we have a leas gloomy method of checking onr results than that 
afifonled by a consideration of the burial returns. The children between 4 and 
13 years of age form, roughly speaking, about a fifth of the population. If we 
ascertain the number of children attending the Board Schools and similar 
establishments, we obtain at the same time the immbers of -Jews who cannot 
be aaid to be wealthy eaoiigh to justify the proverb "rich as a Jew." 

The following list gives approximately the numbers of the Jewish 
atlendants of such schoola, some of the figures being for the middle of 1882, 
otbeia lor the beginning of 1883 : 

Jews' Free, Bell Lane 2,800 WoslmiiiBter Proe 35S 

Old Cfiatle Street 1,273 Spanish & PortUKueae HiS 

Infant, Commercial St. 738 Jaws' Orphan 21ft 

Betlle Strctt &19 Boiongh IfiS 

Chiokaand Street 450 Buyiwater loO 

Infant, Tenter »trost 447 Middle Class, CltU 57 

Htqiaey BU Daat and D 


This wonld account for 39,915 of the London Jewish . popnlation or 
40,000 out of 46,000. Of the remaining 1,200 children of the 
upper or wealthy classes we can only hope to trace the 600 boys. Of 
these 75 are at Uniyersity College, 50 at the City of London, aboot 30 at 
Clifton and Harrow, probably 150 in German or French schools and the 
remaining 350 mnst be scattered through the seven chief Jewish Boarding 
schools and other middle class schools like that in Cowper Street. These 
figures, so far from confirming our previous results, bring an element of 
doubt into the problem. While we have assumed 1,500 wealthy families 
in the West, there are also 800 well- to-do families North, South and East whose 
children are to be accounted for, so that out of the 9,200 children in the 
Jewish commnnity, 1,900 should attend middle class and public schools, and 
only 7,300 Board Schools. Nearly 700 more children therefore attend 
lower schools than should do so if our estimates were accurate and if parents 
always Fend their children 1o schools aopropriate to their social position. 
Only two alternatives can solye the difficulty ; either the estimate for the 
wealthy Jews of Loudon was too high, or tolerably rich Jews often send 
their children to schools of the grade of Board Schools. I will not attempt 
to decide as to which of these hypotheses answers to the facts of the case.* 

Some further confirmation of the number of families in the various ranks 
of life may be taken from the number of male seatholders belonging to the 
synagogues of London. la 1881 there were 3,418 seatholders of London 
synagogues given in the Report of the Board of Deputies, and if we add 227 
Yehidim of the Spanish and Portuguese congregation (not ^iven in the 
report), and 329 seatholders of Berkeley Street, a total of 3,984 heads of 
families is obtained. This may be considered a fair proportion of the 5,500 
families calculated to be above poverty ; some of these and nearly all the 
lower and pauper class attend the Hebroth or minor congregations. Here 
again, we have an indication that the well-to-do have been credited with 
rather too large numbers in our estimate. And on endeavouring to iden- 
tify the 5,000 names reckoned to be in the Commercial Directory of Messrs. 
Kelly and Co., I have only been successful with 3,076 names in the Trades 
and Law Directories contained in that compilatioo. This number probably 
represents some 2,800 separate firms and individuals, and it would not be 
too much to suppose that the remaining 2,200 would escape my notice by 
unavoidable lapses of attention in examining some 2,500 different trades and 
187,000 names and still more oy the impossibility ot identifying names that 
were either too English or too German to be reckoned as Jews. However, 
if I may venture to be my own critic, I shall be inclined to regard the number 
3,000 as somewhat too high for the class E (shopkeepers, &c.) the error being 
due to tbe very hi^h number given by the name '^ Jacobs " in the Commercial 
Directory, viz., 9,984, by the method employed ; removing this we should 
obtain as an average 4,509, which is probably nearer the truth. We may, there- 
tore, decrease class E by 500 and increase class F (petty traders) by the same 
number of families who are indeed poor but have never been on the books 
of the Board of Guardians. I may add that class G (servants and assist- 
ants) is a very doubtful item, since so many of its constitaent members 

'*' Since writing the above the Report of the Board of Guardians for 1882 has appeared, 
which seems to show that about 1,800 more poor Jews has been added to the population of 
London during 1882 in addition to class K above. Of these some 300 or 400 would be 
children of the school age, and the above anomaly is to some extent explained by the 
increased estimate of the London Jewish population which must now be p.'aced at some* 
thing like ^7,^00. 


TTonld bealrendyconnted amoug the f&mllieB of classes E and F. In a 
revieion of the imaginary censaa we have been holding of the Jewe in 
London, a Begietrar would probably Sz on the following " reviaed " fignrea 
for claBBCB E to : 

B Shopkeepers 2,500 6 i;,SOn 

F Petty traders" 2,750 4 11,000 

G Sarraatg, 4c 6U0 

The reader may douht whether these considerations contain any "proof 
or confirmation ofonrprevions resulte, but they may, at any rat", be regarded 
AS confirmation of the statement that "it is only with claBBes E-G that 
there can be any serions departure from the actual state of the population." 
And even if the " revised " figures be adopted, they only serve to make the 
proportion of poor greater and that of the wealthy less than in the previous 
estimate. Id the region of pure hypotbesis in which this estimate has been 
neceasarily made one mnat allow for a large margin of probable error and I 
ba»e preferred to put two poHsible adaptationa of the classes interraediate 
hi i"een rich and poor before the reader's choice. Where 60 mnchia matter 
ol np proximal ion it wonld be absurd to claim any rigid certainty. 

This is all the evidence that I can addnce for the general proportion of 
riub and poor among the London Jews. I he fact that there are no less 
than 47 charitable institutions enpported by them at a cost of at least 
£37,000 per annum, may servo to confirm the general impreaBion of the 
large number of Jewish poor in London, When we add tlio large private 
benevolence of well-to-do Jews, and the £70,000 contributed by them to the 
ManaioQ House Fund last year, it is probable that the estimate of £150,000 
said to be distribnted in charity by English Jews per annnm in WkUtaker's 
Almanack for 1883 (p. 200), is very near the truth for London alone, and 
it is rendered likely that Jews keep up the cnstom of apending a tiihe of 
their net income in charity. Though only 1.22 per cent, of the population 
of London, they have contributed 3.8 per cent, of the Hospital Sunday Fond, 
among the total contributors to which they have ranked third (^after the 
Established Church and the Congregationalists) since its foundation in 1873 
(Official Year-Book of Church of Eiujland, 1883, p. 684), It is scarcely 
too much to say that one of the chief reasons why Jews are bo generally 
reputed to be rich is because tbey have bo many poor. 



In the preceding inyestJgation we have collected together all the 
pieces of information contained in the communal statistics and else- 
where as to the social position of the Jews of London. We maj 
now proceed to examine more closely the canses for the large pre- 
dominance of the lower and pauper classes. The larger numbers taken from 
the Report of the Board of Guardians scarcelj require yerification. But the 
gratuitous distributions of matsoth (Passoyer cakes) show that the number of 
poor is rather aboye than below the number there giyen. The Oyerseers of the 
Poor of the United Synagogue reckoned in 1882 that they had distributed 
maUoih to 2,500 families or about 10,000 indiyidnals. If we adopt a 
statistical canon, which I yenture to formulate, " round numbers are always 
aboye, definite fiflrures always below reality ; " these figures completely 
confirm the 2,118 cases with 7,911 indiyiduals giyen by the Board of 
Guardians for 1881. But that institution giyes far more knowledge of the 
state of the Jewish poor of London than is contained in these figures, 
and I shall deyote the remainder of these remarks to a consideratioii 
of its statistics. This is the more incumbent upon us as we are placed 
in fuU possession of the main facts of London Jewish pauperism by the 
rich fund of statistics annually compiled by the Board of Guardians. 
That institution has admirably fulfilled the desire expressed by its founder, 
the late Mr. E. Alex, in his original circular dated 16th February, 185SI— 
"u^e imist he put in possession of the statistics of poverty" (the italics are 
his). From the details giyen in its reports from 1869 (when the present 
method of compilation was in full working order) to 1881, I haye compiled 
those figures which conyey information of more general interest, omitting 
the details connected with the internal working ot the Board, as well as the 
yery interesting reports of its medical officers from 1862 to 1878, the 
information conyeyed in which I must reserye for a future occasion. 

The following table contains the main points of interest for the years 
1869—1881 : 

Number of cases 28,788 Emigrants left London 5,632 

Do. natives of England 5,5 1 4 Ditto, foreign 5,807 

Percentage of native cases 19*14 Did not apply for a year (in- 

Kew cases 10,(>10 eluding emigrants) 9,471 

Percentage of new cases 34*77 Chronic cases 3,179 

Foreign new cases 8,998 Expenditure £99,209 2 2 

Percentage of foreign to all Average do. per case 3 8 11 

new cases 89 

The only criticism which a statistician can make on the compilations of the 
Board is that cases haye been selected for the units rather than indiyiduals. 
Tet for the two main points, the total numbers and the number of emigrants, 
the figures for the individuals are also giyen, and with a little trouble one can 
estimate the number of individuals to each class of case as follows, for the 
Tears 1870 — 1881 (where the requisite details haye been giytn) : 

Avanse Va. 


... 26,685 




... 21,321 



... 3,035 


... 18.297 



We ehall not, therefore, be Ter; far out if we aBBnme that a casual case in 
Lonilon ia equivalent to four iadividualB. And nilh this result we maj turn 
back to the infortDation contained in the precedtD)^ table as to the orii;iu of 
the large proportion of poor whom we bava oalcDlated to lire in London. If 
we subtract tha number of foreien tmiiirants Irom that of the foreij^n new 
cases we should obtain the number of foreign poor who have b<^en added to 
the London population during the thirteen jears nnder con^idira- 
tion and for some seven years previous. This ri'aubes tlie lar^re 
total of 3,fi91 cases, which woald include 14,764 individnals afcor.lin^ 
to the preceding estimate. Kow of the 2,6"2& cases reliiiTed in 1881 
only 467 were native English Jews, and 2,163 were foreigniTB, of 
whom 481 left the country, leaving, therelorp, l,(jr8 foreign catses on tlie 
books at the end of that year. Hubtracting these Iroti the total numbiT of 
foreign cases who have been added to the Jewi-h populaiion, it is clear 
that at least 2,013 foreign oases have gone off the books of the Board of 
Gaardians fi-om I8fi9 to 1881, and we may now add 498 for 1883. Some 
of these have donbtless been removed by death, but tbeir place has been 
supplied by the births among this class of ihe population. 

The figures for 1882 which have just been issued deserve notice by 
themselves on account of the remarkable additions which that year has 
seemingly made to the poorer Jewish population of London, The main 
fignres pointing to this fact are as follows : 

2,9.i3 Porrnor applicanti did not ipply... 9SB 

443 Chronic oases 213 

1,SDS Cases added by Goaioint Committee 277 

1,287 „ „ „ iudividiinlB 48S 

611 Expenditnre £12,678 13 9 


The excess of new foreign cases over emigrant foreigners, 706, cannot he 
adopted as the addition of 2,800 foreigners to the London population during 
last year, though it informs us of that addition to the number of foreigners 
within the past ten years or so. There were 6!)9 cases who arrived during 
the past year ; and there are donbtless many who have arrived during the 
laat six months of the year who have been prevented from applying by the 
regnlations of the Board. How many of these new arrivals of 1882 left during 
the year cannot be determined from the Report. We can only say that aKainst 
1,067 new cases oi foreigners who have arrived in England during the past 
seven years, 536 similar cases left, leaving a balance of 559 cases or about 
2,156 individnals. Add to these the 48S Individuals added by the Conjoint 
Committee of the Mansion Honse Fund and we have a grand total of 
2,642 recent foreigners who came within the cognisance of the Board in 
1862. It is difficult to say how many of these were actual arrivals of the 
year but it is probable that 2,000 sonls were added to the Jewish popu- 
lation from August 1881 to December 1882, and the toUl population raised 
thereby to 47,000. 

Not alone do tha reports of the Board of Guardians enable ns to deter- 
mine the »dditioiii to the Jewish population of LQaAQ^WQ'a).«tota»^\ "^-js^*** 
D 2 3| 

alive oases. 

™l^l* - 




make as acquainted with the nationalitj of the foreign poor. At the begin- 
ning of the Board's operations, it could say '' Holland continues to supply 
most of the foreign poor " (Report for 186 1 ). Bat eleven years biter things 
had changed, and *^ the poor Jews in Eastland are now almost excluslTely 
recraited from Poland," says the Report for 1872. This has doubtless 
been due to the cheapening of the fares from the Continent. German 
Jews have quite got into the habit of *' passing on " their Polish poor 
to England. 1 he change from Dutchmen to Poles is by no means an unfor- 
tunate one. Whereas tbe former rarely raise themselves out of a state of 
pauperism if they have once sunk to that level, the recuperative powers of 
thelat'erare remarkable as the fact that 1,500 have removed themselves 
from the books is in itself sufficient to show. Of the 7,785 new foreign 
cases from 1871 to 1881, no less than 6,191 or 79.26 per cent, were Poles, 
whereas only 3,712 emigrant cases were of that nationality during the same 
period, showing that 2,44 9 Polish Jews and their families remained in 
England during those eleven years. Add to these nearly 2,000 Russian 
Refugees and others who joined their ranks in 1882, and we have 12,000 
Poliiith Jews added to the population of London daring the last fifteen years, 
and these have doubtless increased to at least 13,000 in that time. 

A further extension of the above figures, and we have rough means of 
estimating the nationality of the present Jews of London. Besides the 
13,000 Poles calculated above, there have been 5,000 poor Jews from Holland 
and Germany (viz., 1,212 cases) added to our numbers between 1869 and 
1881, and to these we may add at least 3,000 more for natural increase and 
the not inconsiderable number of German merchants and clerks who have 
joined us in those years. Of the remaining 26,000 London Jews some- 
thing under 3,000 (judging from the burial returns) belong to the Spanish 
and Portuguese Congregation, the remaining 23,000 being native English 
of the Ashkenazi rite, of whom some 1,500 or so belong to the Berkeley 
Street Synagogue. The latter we might divide in point of origin into 500 
originally Sephardim and 1,000 Askenazim. It would be interesting to 
know how many of these natives have joined our ranks this century. 
Assuming that 7,500 represent these " new natives," the remainder form- 
ing the old " English Colony," we might divide London Jews into the 
following categories as regards origin : 

" i^nglish Colony " 15,000 Spanish and Portuguese 

Poles 13,000 (including 500 " Reformers") 3,500 

German and Dutch 8,000 

" New English " 7,500 47,000 

The Jews ot London may therefore be divided into three historic classes 
(A) a nucleus of 8,500 descended from the original settlers in the seven- 
teenth century— the London Jews of the past— (B) the " English colony" 
of some 15,000 from last century and 7,500 who have only been among 
ns during the past half centuiy^the Jews of the present who have mostly 
migrated from tbe East End of London, and lastly (C) the " foreign contin- 
gent" of 21,000, the majority of whom are very poor. These last will 
doubtless form the Jews of the future displacing B as these have wrested the 
hegemony from A. We can scarcely wish the last class a better fate than 
to progress as its two predecessors have successively done. While there 
are only at most 7,000 poor in the 25,000 comprising classes A and B, 
18,000 out of the 21,000 forming the foreign contingent are or have been 
*^e}ientB^* of the Board of Guardians. That the latter should succeed 

well u the London Jews of the past and present no better plan can be 
enggeBted than to follofr in their footatepB and to become, as thej have 
done, English JewB indeed. It is ecarcelf the fanction of the compiler of 
figarefl to draw the moral of his tale, but I cannot refrain from pointing 
oat the verj obvions conclaaion from the above cBlcolationa that the imme- 
diate problem before the JewB of Loiidon is to Anglicise their "foreign 

Thf^se reanlts carry ivith them more information than the mere figures 
shon OQ the surface. It is probably oning to the large mass of foreign poor 
nnaccnstomed to the English climate and conditione of life that London 
almost alone of ali the cities of the ivorld, has a larger infant mortality 
among its Jewish iohabitants than amoag the general population. I shall 
have more to say on this distressing subject later on in these Studies bat 
meannhile I may point to a fact recently pubhshed (for the first time) in 
thebnrial staiistics of the United Sjnagogne. Of 507 charity funerals in 1882 
no less than 4il or 81.4 per cent, nere those of children under 10, nhereas 
in England and Wales such deaths incladed only 4S'5 per ceuC, in 1880. 
It is probable that this large percentage is caused to some extent by the 
inclusion of still-births in the above figures, bat if we remove 50 lor these 
the proportion remains as high as 71 per cent. As the lower death rate 
generally found among Jews is always attribnted to smaller infant mortality 
it becomes probable that, owing to the large numbers of foreign poor, the 
death rate of London Jews is, quit* exceptionally, higher than that of 
Londoners in general. We may anticipate that this condition will be only 
temporary until the " foreign contingent " has been assimilated, but it will 
have to be taken into account for the present, especially in drawing uij 
fltatifltical oonoluBion from the burial returns. 



Nothing throws more ligbt oa the character of a people than the 
occupations in which ite membere pass their lives. Nothing either 
espreBHCB a man'a character better or exerts a atronger influence on it than 
the work which fiUs hia mind and throagh which ho gives expression to hia 
pereonalily. Man's " uatnre is sabdned to what it works in," in a wider 
sense than the po«>.t'e. Every occnpation has its own psychology as well as its 
own medicine. To know, therefore, what trades a nation mostly aSecte, 
and how far its members excel in particolar occnpalions ie a long way 
towards discovering their peculiar aptitudes and the function they perform 
in the world's activity. Unfortnnately both economics and statistics hav9 
done bnt little towards the vast work of comparative tables dealing with 
this subject. And with regard to the special subject here to be considered, 
wehaveonlytheoccnpations of Jews given fnlly and officially with regard 
to the population of Prussia more than twenty years ago. Engel'B masterly 
works on the subject for later years contain, so far as I know, no reference to 
confession. There is no subject relating to Jews on which we know ho 
litile ; as a matter of course there has been none on which bo mach has been 
asserted during the recent anti-Semitic movement. The importance of the 
sntiject, both polemically and as a guide to future improvement, has led me to 
collect as mnch as possible relating to it and to add what httle I conld 
obtain by my own research. 

Though a man cannot be said to be bom to a trade yet his choice of aa 
occupation is largely determined by his birth. Mill and Cairnes have laid stress 
on the " fonrgrade8"into which workman may be dividei {HiW, Pol. Eeon IL 
xiv., 2;CairneBleaif. PrMi. I. iii.5). A workman rarely changes his occnpa- 
tion, and almost as rarely does he bring up his son to another. This fixity of 
occnpation applies with more force to the Jews, as in addition to natural inertia 
there have been external forces keeping them in certain grooves. The 
exclusion from the Guilds, the denial of rights in real property, and the church 
policy towards usury were enough in themselves to restrict Jewish activity 
within a very limited sphere. And it is almost startling to reflect how 
recently Ihese restrictions have been removed, even in the most civilised 
lands. The North-German Confederation gave Jews complete choice of 
occupation {Gewerbefreikeit), 21at June, 1869. Anstro- Hungary changed 
ber policy towards them in 1867, and concluded the process of emancipation 
in 1872. Switzerland removed the barrier in 18C9, Italy became free 
throughout its length in 1871. Even in England the com^'re ouverle baa 
only betn given since 1859. At the present day over two-thirds of the 
Jewish race are handicapped in the struggle for existence by restrictions on 
tbeir occupation. National character is of slow growth and equally slow 
to change. It would he absurd to suppose tbat a single generation will 
remove tendencies which have been the development of long centuries. 

One result of medimval restrictions has to be taken into account in tbe 

beginning of any comparative statistics on Jewish occupations. Through- 

ont the Diaspora, Jews have been prevented from holding land, and have, 

arefore, bad no inducement to settle in the country, and in many places 




thej were obliged to direll within fixed limila, Judengisaen, Ghetti, or Jewries. 
Besides thia, their religious eDaetmeota (M-iahna, Msgilla I. 3,4) only per- 
mit the sacred function'^ of pnblic worship to be performed in the presence 
of ten nmlea above the age of thirteen, the minimnoi for & congregation. 
This invoWes that at least fortj souls should dwell within accessible diatanoe . 
Thia consideration at once explains the fact to which Andree (Zur VolkskuTide 
der Juden p. 256) calls attention to as something remarkable, that onlj one- 
sixth of the Jewish population of Prueaia in IBll dwelt in villages where 
their numbera were nnder fifty sonU. 

The above historic and social causes are qaite sufficient to explain the 
very large proportions of Jews who live in great cities. I have been able 
to ascertain the Jewish population of seventy-nine cities which contain over 
5,000 Jews and these include ahoat 1,250,000 Jews or about 17,4 per cent, 
ot the Jewish population of the world. As these cities again have a col- 
lective population of 24,000,000 the average percentage of Jons in some of 
the greatest cities of the world is ja-t over 5 per cent., a fact which may, to 
some extent, acconnt for the large share they receive ot the world's atten- 
tion. I may add that 463,000 Jews live in the eight capitals, Warsaw, 
Vienna, Festb, New York, London, Berlin, Paris, and Amsterdam. Thus 
every sixteenth Jew dwells in one of these great cities where, on the 
average, every twentieth person is an Israelite. In England 75 per cent, 
of English Jews dwell in the metropolis, which only contains 15 per cent. 
of the general populstion. In the llnited States twenty-one cities contain 
185,000, or 80 percent, of the 230,000 Jews who are scattered over more 
than a thousand towns of that country. In Vienna, Jews formed 7'2 per 
cent, of the population in 1880 as against 6-6 per cent, in 1869 ; in Berlin 
from 186? to 1876 they increased from 3-7 per cent. to4'7 per cent., causing 
Hotprediger Stocker to ntter his celebrated cry. Dag iit su viel I 

These facts may be snpplemented by the following more general state- 
ments of the proportions of urban and raral populations among the Jews. 
Dr, 8. Neumann {^Die Fahel von der jad. Maageneimoandarung, p. 65) gives 
the following percentage of Jews living in the open country in Prussia, to 
which I have added, after Jannasch, the proportion of the general population : 

Older Parts New PoaBosdans Togetber Oenoral Papnlatjon 


Here the decrease in the rural population is not so very marked, but the 
Bmall proportion compared with the general population is noteworthy. In 
coantries where the Jewish population is smaller, the contrast is more 
striking. Thus in Saxony in 1880 while 72 per cent, of the general popQ- 
l&tion dwelt in the conntry, only 3 per cent, of Jews lived away from towns 
{Statu/.. Jahrb.fur Sacliscn, 1883, p. 5.) At the last census of Victoria 
in 1881 the percentages of the population were as follows {Census of Victoria, 
pt. Mi., Religions of the people) : 

Cities, towus, d;«. Shires Ontiide loul inrlsdiotiDQ 

Oeneral IM 49 I 

Jews 93 7 

I have laid stress on this aspect of Jewish life because in many wayi 
t forme the key to their occapations and at once renders nngatory any coi 
euiBoii between the general statistics of occttpB.tlo'^% ui& '0&.tA%T^^>is« 



aiSi to expect a m&n who lives in Paris, Vienna or B^ 
to tend sheep or dig up coal ; we mnat compare Jewish occnpations with tboee 
of the town dwelleTB. The mere fact that thej tend towards large towns in 
ever increaeing numbers is b; no means peculiar to them ; it ia a constant 
feature in modem Htatiatics, Thu8 while in 1801 there was one Londoner 
to every 17 Englishmen, one Parisian to every 49 Frenchmen, and ona 
inhabitant of Berlin to every 67 Prussians, 75 years later there was in 1876 ft 
Londoner lo every H, a Parisian to every 18, and a dweller of Berlin to every S 1 
inhabitants ef their respective countries (Uettiagen Moral StatUtik, p. 382), 
There is nothing in modem life which is likely to attract Jews more into the 
country than their neighbours. The reasons why they were forced in the past 
to prefer the rug in urhe are too well known to need more than a reference to 
Pfarrer Host's admirably compiled little trocftuce, Die Bsrii/si^ad'jteii der 
Juden fAlzey, 1880), admirablealike fortheindustry with which it iscompited 
and the spirit which led a Protestant clergyman to its compilation. We 
have then to regard the Jews only or mostly as town dwellers in considering 
tbeir occupations. It will concern ns later on how far this point of view 
accounts for their larger proportion of mentally and phvaically afflicted, 
their smaller bodily size, and the general "movement" of the Jewish 
population. It also acconnts for the smaller proportion they afford to the 
continental armies. Thus, though ^'y of the Austrian population, they 
afforded only -^ of the standing army in 1880, although their numbers had 
doubled in the forces since 1869 while the testofthepopulation only increased 
their contingents 11 per cent, (Sohimmer Die Juden ia Oesterreich niKh 
ZahUng von 1880, Statist. Monats. 1881). Wappiins, and even long before him 
Bnll.v, noticed the much smaller contingent given to standing armies bythe 
orban population. When we add that ia Prussia no Jew can attain to the 
command of a regiment, by custom if not by law, it is easy to uniierstand 
that the profession of arms is not popular with the Jewish population of 
that kingdom. Tbti^ in 1864 the Jews formed only 0,47 per cent of the 
Prussian army (Frantz, Eildebrands Jahrb. 1868, p, ij), though they 
formed 1 '40 of the population. In England on the other hand where, as we 
shall show, the physical poners of native Jews are superior to the general 
average of Jews, there are said to be 2,000 Israelites enrolled in the 
Tolnnteer corps (ttT-B.. Ailei, Nineteenth Century, April 1878), and as thia 
nombers 200,000 in all, they contribute a proportion much larger than their 
numbers as compared with the general population. 

The general problem of Jewish occupations is to discover what are the 
trades, &e., peonUar to townsfolk which are most affected by Jews. It will 
be found, I think, that in a large majority of instances the occupations are 
determined by their religions needs. Thus, butchers are required for ktisher 
meat, and many Jews are therefore found in a trade seemingly alien to their 
general character, and generally adopted by persons bom in country neigh- 
bourhoods. Printing and bookbinding are also branches where the sacred 
has led on to the seonlar application of those industries. The opportunities 
given by the frnit and tobacco trades for avoiding a second Sabbath account 
for a large predominance of Jews in these trades. And, as a general 
principle, those trades are most favoured by Jews which afford them oppor- 
tunities for arranging their own time for work, and leaving them free for 
their festivals and religious duties generally. Piece-work rather than time- 
work, domestic industries rather than factory work, in fact occupations in 
which they can be, to a certain extent, masters, would naturally be chosen 

bj a people whose holjdaya differ from those of their neighbonrs. Add to 
this certain nutnral tendeneisH, heij^htened by historic c*mes, towards pri- 
vate banking and iuternation-il exchange, and the chief occnpELtioiis of the 
Jewish rucfl are accounled lor. 

Tlie only collection of data on the occupation^ of Jews that has been 
hitherto made is that of K. Andree (I.e. pp. 191, 192), culled from various 
travellers. ehieSy in lands outaiJe Europe. I reproduee it here, adding the 
name of the authority given by Andree in different parts of his book : 



Principal Trades. 



Dsalera, broken, handioraftameti, icterpreteri, ouirpea- 


tera, tinamichi, tailora, faootmiikera. 



Monay-chsngera, jowellera, linendrapera, pawnbrokerB, 
ipeoDlative builderj. 



Money changers, baiikeri,joweIleri,mBroliants,l:»w)(era. 

Aaia Minor 


aerviHts, portara, merohanta. 


pjintera, butchers. 


Allg. Zdti>»g 

pedlars, vcavera, bootmakcca. 



Petty tradeta, shepberdg. 


Annonrara, Bilveramitba, maaona, bntober*. 



hawkera, clotheBmon. 





AgricnitnriatB, oilmannfaotnrtra.BoldiemrBeQilgrael], 



Merchanta, hawkera, pbyaioiaiia, ioumaliBti, padlare, 



MerchantB, bawkeca, gold chsngeca, phyaioiana, apotho- 

caries, dentiatJ. 
Corn dealera, hide and silk merchaota. 



Handicraftamen, pedlaca, UBurera, interpreters, casliiera. 



Leatbermakera, dealers, tobacco and wine mercbants. 



Butebera, carriers, cap and aboemakera, tailora, a few 
smiths, locksmitba, glaiiera. carpantera, mnaiciana. 

Tbia liBt clearly contains merely the personal impressions of sixteen trarel- 
lem, who naturally report the results of their ownexperience— a most falla- 
cious guide as regards the extent of Jewish occupations, though probably 
fairly accurate in det«rmining the trades in which Jews are particularly 
conspicuous. Yet even as it stands, it teatiSes to a far wider spread of 
handicrafts than is usually allowed by anti-Semilio pamphleteers, who v(ry 
probably never handled a hoe or a hammer in their liie. And not alone is 
there abundant evidence of hard manual labour among Jews, but Andree'e 
anthorities testify to considerable success at such callings. '* I'be only good 
workmen in the city are Jews," says Hamilton of Tripolis (Andree, p. 204) ; 
in Arabia, Maltzan reports "they are clever at all kinds of handwork " 
{ibid. p. 222). Of the Russian Jews Tchubinsky grants that " they are 
prized aa workmen owing to their zeal and cleverness" {Qlobm, 1880, p. 
377), and the Govern or- General of Kowno gives an equally favonrable 
account of the 10,605 Jewieh artizans who monopolise the handicrafts 
of bis Government, {Jnrhh Ti-ibinw, San Francisco, 2nd Feb., 181^3). 

Wherever we can supplement the above list by actual statistics, it is 
geen to be wofolly deficient as regards the number of hamlicraftsmea fau.^^ 
ererywhere among Jews. Thus Mr, Sjiiaey it. ^aiaMA ^-t^i ^.Xialv. Q^- '»^'^ 


Jernsalem Jews parading 29 handicrmfUi, of which the following were the 
most fayoored. (Jeunsh Life in the Bast, p. 78) : 

Tinkers .., 







Watchmakers ••• m^ ... 20 

Parchment Manafaotiirers ••• 18 

Turners — 16 

Bookbinders 14 

Masons ... ••• •«• ••• 10 

We might also contrast Petermann'8 meagre list for Damascas by Mr. Fresco's 
analysis of the handicrafts of 882 heads of Jewish families in that city, of 
whom no lens than 650 are wearers (^Eleventh Report of Anglo-Jeivish Asso" 
ciation, p. 78). Or, again, in the Report of the Liverpool Gommission of the 
Mansion House Fund (Table 2, •' Trades and Callings," p. 10), of 1,848 
heads of families of Russian refngees, whose occapations are tabulated, only 
19 were dealers, 42 clerks, 21 chemirits, and 31 students, the remaining 
1,730 being divided among 26 handicrafts among which the order of 
preference was as follows : 






Brewers ••• 





Labourers ... 










Tobacco workers ... 














Glaziers ... 





Joiners ... 















Tanners ... 





Tinsmiths ... 





Furriers ..• 





Butchers ... 





Saddlers ... 





Metal workers 










Painters ..• 















Textile workers 















Jewellers ... 





Coopers ... 





A still more instrnctiye example of Jewish industry is afforded by the 
comparative list of handicraftsmen at Bucharest extracted by the Times 
correspondent from the Fratermtatea, alocaljoamal(«/etc;itf^ C/^rcmtcZa, Sept. 
5, 1879). The number of Bonmanians and Jews respectiyely in yarions tiades 
was as loUows : 

Tinkers ••• 



Braidmakers .. 

Watchmakers .. 

And in all 3,880 Jews were engaged in manual labour in hardworking trades 
against 1,481 Roumanians— a curious commentary on the stock argu- 
ments of the anti-Semites of that Principality. 

Even in centres of commerce like the great capitals we find large num- 
bers of Jews working with their hands, as may be instanced from the 

following tables. 

Pesth, 1870 (Edrosi) Vienna, 1869 (Jeitteles) 












Gabi> etmakers 





Boukbinders ... 





Lampmakers ... 










Brushmakers ... 


















all 4,791 Jews were engaged in industry out of 21,071 adult workers in 


~PMth7 and 4,378 ont of 26,894 in Vienna; wbila in 1870 at Berlin, 3i725~~ 

ont of a posHible 16, 'iS^, wer« engaged in various induatriei, the detaila of 
which in (jchirabe are not BafSdently explicit to ran parallel ivilh the above. 
Boma further evidence of the aptitude of .Tows for handicrafts may be 
taken from the action of the variona benevolpnt bodies in apprenticing 
Jewish yonth. Thus the Jewish " H and werkerv rein " of Vienna had in 
1879 43:J apprenticfa of whom 84 were locksmiths, 58 ahoemakera, 37 car- 
penter)', 20 tnrnere and 20 bakere, while among the rest none were bping 
trained bb tailors — an omission worthy of example (RobI 1. o. p. 46). The 
\&al Bulletin of the Alliance Is raelita (Ser. II. No. 5, p. i6, S-pt. 1882) 
gives the following trades to which 306 lewish yonthu were being appren- 
ticed nuder its auspices at various towoR in Asia Minor and North Africa : 

BootniBkera (!7 BUckamiths IQ WritcFi fi 


WBtchmakeiB 2 

And here in Londo 
apprentices to no le 
cabinet make 

n the Jewish Board of Gnardiana is now training 213 
ris than 69 different trades oF which the most popular 
'ra 28, bootmaker- 17, j-w.-llera 13, upholsterera 13, 
tailors 10, and wood carvers 9. (PeporKvT 1682). 

The one common characteristic of the above lists is the predominance 
of tailoring as the lavourite occnpalion of Ji'wish labourers. This trade 
fulfils all the requirements we have noted above as being needed for Jews ; 
it is in the main a domestic industry in its loner forms, and enables a man 
to command his own hours of work. Un the other hand, it must be remem- 
bered that the clothing induitries, for reasons which Hsnshofer points ont 
(Lehrb. d. ^taiii-tik, p. JOO), are "ihe mo^t numerously rppresented of all 
industries," and the only diH'erence between general and Jewish statistics in 
this respect is that, geoerallj, shoemakers outnumber the tailors. 

The above examples, inclnding details of no less than 30,918 Jewish 
handicraftsmen, are amply sufficient to prove the wide extent, of manual 
labour among Jews. It remains to investigate what proportion of Jews live 
as artizans as compared with other modes of oeccpntion. For the Jewitli 
jopnlation of whole countries I have only been able to obtain details with 
regard to this for Prncsia for 1849 and 1861. I take the following from 
an anti-gemiiic work Israel und die Gojivi 1880 p G7, after havjng checked 
the figures for 1861 from Engel in the Zeitsohr. dts Preus. Satiat Bur. 
Bnfd 3, p. 43. The total numbers only include those capable o( earning 
a livelihood (" Erwerbsliihig") : 


I— Tr«Je. S8,513 

■. B&nkerg A mosaj-cbftDgen 3H 
i. Wbolcsale mercliBati ... 1,003 
e. BeUil da. ... 6fiiS 
d, A gen t«, pawnbrokers ... 1,444 
>. VictiwlUn BDd hDakatera. S,B8T 
J. Psdlati 1,054 

1861. 1849. 1861. 

30,62111. PbyBioianiaDdteacben... 1,61U 3,084 
G60 III. Mechiuiios and liuuU- 

9.785 oraftBmen 12,054 11,446 

9.786 IV. Fanning 682 648 

2,035 V. Gardening, Ao 86 26 

B,0D8 VI. BriWHB 823 313 

1,209 VII. Lower commnnBlaffloiBla 636 949 

4 814 VIII. Hired laboniflci 2,688 2,li/6 

4,699 IX- Betvunts 6,000 4,814 

S,852 X. Living on Inooms ... 1.677 2,993 

988 XI. Paoperi l.J'*.'^ ".Sfi;;^ 

■tiAA wyi,*^»5>'*> 


Thaswe see that every fifth Jew in Prassia ia 1849 and every sixth Jew in 
1861 obtained his liyelibood by a handicraft. Rost, by adding together 
classes L (j.) IV. V. and VI. and half of VIII. and IX., finds that 7 per 
cent of Jews in 1861 lived by agricaltare, and abiding the other half to class 
III. he obtains 18 percent, as handicraftsmen, and adding to these I. (h) and 
VII. and a certain proportion of I. (i; he arrives at a grand total of 88 per 
cent, of Jews who earned their living by their hands and not their heads 
in 1861. From the figures for 1861 Legoyt {Immunites p. 34) has given a 
comparative list of the occupations of Jews and others which is very inKtroo- 
tive. I add the similar list for Italy given by Gavaliere Servi in his work 
Gli Israeliti dUEurojpa, 1872, p. 804, lor which however no reference is given* 
'1 he third column gives Servi's rebults with the omission of the four last 
rubrics for better comparison with Legoyt* s : 

Prussia (adult workers). 



Agriculture ••• •.• 


43 53 




Commerce ... ... 







3 55 


Independent ... 



Pauper ... 






Religion ... ••• 



Administration ... 



Without occupation. 



Jews Others 

Italy (adult worl 
Jews Othei 



0-3 58-0 



12-6 223 



55*8 4 8 



5'0 4-5 



8-7 8-7 



17-3 4-5 



0-9 2-2 



— .. 



~- _ 



— _ 



— .. 

The points in which the two lists agree are (1) the very small propor- 
tion of Jews engaged in agricultural pursuits, (2) the remarkably large 
percentage who follow commercial callings, (3) the greater proportion of 
Jews engaged in the professions, and (4) in (service than the Christians, 
and the (5) larger number of independent persons among the former and (6) 
of artizans among the latter. The lists only disagree in one point — the 
amount of paupers among the Jews which is higher in Prussia than the 
rest of the population but lower in Italy. This may be accounted for 
by the fact that many admitted into the former class in Prussia are 
included under the rubric of ^' without occupation " in the Italian calculation. 
8ervi accounts for the enormous proportion of Jews which comes under this 
heading by the fact that women and children are included in the estimate, 
and that Jewessef, unlike Italian women, do not engage in work. It is 
noteworthy that in Italy Jews have a larger proportion of men in the army 
and in official positions than the rest of the population — a result which 
would certainly not apply to Prussia nor probably to any other country in 
the world. 

With regard to the small proportion of Jews engaged in agricnU 
ture, this is, as we have already remarked, synonymous with the large pro* 
portions who live in towns. To eliminate this element we must resort to 
the occupation statistics of large towns— a branch of statistics that has only 
been extensively cultivated within the past twelve years. During this 
period details of interest have been published as to the occupations of Jews 
and others in Berlin, Vienna, Pestb, and Leipzig. In H. iSchwabe's Die 
Tcdnigliche Bauptstadt Berlin im Jalire 1871 elaborate tables are given of 
the occupations of Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and Nobles (p. 1 00) —so 
elaborate, indeed, that it is with great difficulty that one can arrive at any 
ally ccmparatiye results. Schwabe draws a distinction between work- 

36-7 per cent of CatholicB are work-givera, i.e., emploj others, or at any 
rate do not nee their hands, 38.7 per cent, of FrnteetaiitR, and noleiiB than 
71 3 per cent of Jewe, who ihus seem to approximate to the ofivvi- cum 
diynitale of the Kobles, !)0'2 per cent, of whom are work-gi vera (^Ihid p. 99). 
These fignres were qnotei! with much effect during the ant i Semitic move- 
ment by writers and Bpeakers who conveniently ignored the information 
given in an earlier part of the hook (p, S5j, according to which 76'5 per 
cent of those engaged in commerce are HfceeBHrily " workgivere " ( e., use 
their brains rather than their hands in their daily work. The charse thua 
reBoivee itself into the comparatively harmless one, that a very large pro- 
porlion of Jews are engaged in commf-rcisl pursuits, Schwabe draws up 
tables of occupations separately for " wotk-givers " and " work-takers." By 
reducing these to their proper percentages and combining the two tables, I 
have brought hia result^ into a form in which they run tolerably parallel with 
the table given by deitteles in his valuable work, Die CuUusgemehide von 
Israeliten sit Wieii, 1873, the figures of which are baped on the census of 
1869, and refer to the S6,894 Jews above 15 living at that 
date in the Anstrina capital, I would add that Schwabe comea 
to the conclnsion (p. 101) that Jewa only afford 2'7 per cent, of work- 
takers, whereas they formed 4-4 per cent, of the population of Berlin — a 
result which is again only equivalent to emphasising the large proportion 
of JewB engaged iu comioerce. Another result ot his of some interest is 
that 3'4 per cent, of Jewish workers are under 14, whereas this age inclndea 
only I 3 per cent, of the general population. 

This table confirms the results previously obtained as regarda the greater 

proportion of " business men " and of persons living on their income among 
Jews and their loes proportion of aitizans. The superiority of numbers in 
the profeseions disappears to a considerable extent, at least in Berlin, and in 
both lists the number of Jews employed in service is apparently smaller of 
than in the general population— religious diffiouities, in ray opinion, standing 
in the way of an occupation in which the religious observanocB couIJ not be 
properly carried out. 

For Buda-Pesth we have details given of the occupation of 21,071 »iJuIt 
Jews out ot the 39,38'1 who inhabited that city in 187 1 ; these are given itt 
the admirable work of Kurosi I)ia UuUjl. Freisladi Pesl im J<ihre 1870, hia 
eimilar work for 1880 not haTJng rewibed ite ti^g^i^^^wiR -^^ai^a.-^ \*i «>.'»i>- 


with occnpations. From the elaborate details giren I compile the fonowiBg 
table for comparison with the above : 






Education ••• 




Industry ••• 





Art and Literature 




Commerce ... 





Independent ••• 




Hervioe ••• 





Paupers ... ••• 




Officials ^ 





Scholars -• ••• 




Medicine ••• 





The details are not sufficiently well arranged to admit of easy comparison 
with other creeds, but we haye the general result that while every fourth Jew 
is engaged in commercCi only one twenty-fifth of the general population engage 
in business, and service attracts one-twelfth of Jews against one-eifi:hth of the 
remaining creeds. One-thirteenth of Jews were tailors, one-eighteenth dail j 
labourers. Jews have the highest proportion of all creeds among the follow- 
ing occupations (i:»id. p. 120) : goldsmitho, commerce of all kinds, tailorSi 
npholsterers, accountants, insurance agents, medical men, students and 
beggars. The large item allotted to the latter cla<«s in the above list pro- 
bably includes many women without occupation, as in the Italian calculation 
gi?en by Servi. The details gi?en by Hasse tor Leipzig in 1875 (Andree 
pp. 189 and 190) merely confirm the general result of the large proportion 
of Jews engaged in business, and as they only numbered 2,551 in all at that 
date (a fact discreetly omitted by Andree), I have not thought it worth 
while to inyestigate the ca8e more minutely. 

The chief result which comes oat from all these lists in the large pro- 
portion of Jews who devote themselyes to commerce, i^'rom a rough calcula- 
tion based on data given by Hau8hofer I should conclade that 18 per cent, of 
all Prussian Jews are engafred in commerce, against 6 per cent, of the toum 
population of that country, 18 per cent. Jews against 7 percent, in Italy, and, 
judging by Buda-Pesth, 14 per cent, against 4 per cent, of the ^ak;7i population 
ot Hungary. Thus it would appear that Jews are three times as numerous 
in commerce as their neighbourd who dwell in towns. If we might extend 
this conclusion to the great centres of commerce we might say that 15 per 
cent of commercial men were Jews in those towns where the Jewish popula- 
tien reaches, on an average, to 5 per cent. It is scarcely necessary, writing 
in a great commercial country like England, to argue that this characteristic 
of Jews is by no means to be deprecated. Unless commerce is to be regarded 
as criminal, Jewish devotion to commercial pursuits cannot be cast in their 
teeth. German anti-Semites would do well to read the admirable section 
on '' the economic function and importance of commerce " in Lexis' treatise 
on " Handel" in Schonberg Handbuch der Polit Oekonomie (pp. 1063-88). 

From a Jewish point of yiew, howevtir, it is desirable to point 
out that this general training to commerce on the part of Jewish 
parents is a policy of doubtful utility in the present condition of 
the world's commerce and especially as regards its lower grades. With 
the increase of communication and (on the Continent) of the facilities of 
the parcels-post, the functions of the middleman are gradually becoming 
less necessary ; the hawker and the general dealer are being weeded out by 
the co-operatiye store. Mr. Goschen in his recent paper read before the 
Institute of Bankers {Times^ April 19th 1883), pointed to the diminution 
of the class of middlemen as a characteristic of the age. In the early part 
of the century, the function of the middleman was undoubtedly important, 
^nd the Jews had long previous experience in enabling them almost to 
•nopolise this branch of business, and in less-developed Eastern Europe 


^^'tdfl same 


[Be same may be the caee to-i&j. And similarly, in the mannfaotnring 
irK^ex, a cbaoge liaa come adverse to tbe general natore of Jewish basiness. 
The days of " little masters " is over ; the detrelopineat of machiQery has 
Bigned their doom, and, nowadays, one can eara better wages as a foreman 
than profit as one's owa mazier, Espscially ia the clothia<f indastries, 
which are ao favoured among Jews, as can be eeen from the above lists, tbe 
tremendoas compelition has lowered profits till the old-fashioaed tailor or 
bootmaker is oanted out of the market by men who take to those easily 
learned parsnits to earn a bare Jicelihood. 

For these reasons, and laking into account the Jewish custom of early 
marriage which by itself would tend to lower their standard of comfort I am 
iuclined to tbiak that the material pro.sperity of the ilews as a ivhoh has 
dei'lioed since the begianing of the century rather than risen, and has cer- 
tainly not shared in the very general advance of the general population of 
European countries. I have already given some evidence of the lari^e amoant 
of pauperism amone the Jews of Prussia, ATUsterdam, Pesth, and London. 
I may add that in Vienna, Jeitteles reckons that €0 per cent, of the Jews 
are poor, and this is carried ont by some interesting figarea given in his 
book as to the number of rooms in which Jewish families dwell (1. c. n. 70), 
43 percent, having only two rooms or less, 17 per cent, more living in three 
rooms, while only 7'8 dwelt in a rich style, and 3"46 " voluptuous " (p. 71). 
I observe that Jnstizrath Makower in an interesting lecture on the condition 
of the Jews in Berlin cornea to a similar conclusion as to their greater 
poverty as compared with the general population {JJnsere Ocmiende 1881, 
p. IS.) Tchnbinsky, who conducted, on the pit rt of the Government, ascientifio 
invpstigation into tbe condition of the people of Southern Rnssia calculated 
the average income of a Jewish family in the Ukraine at 290 roubles (under 
£30) and found over 20,000 Jewish mendicants in the Eastern Ukraine (B. 
E^olasWoMM^^eGeojfa/i^ii'e Tome V.p. 518) whilemBerditthew, the" Russian 
Jemsalem " he fonnd 5,000 families (?) without occupation {Globus 1880 
p. 346). The general impreHsion opposed to this conclusion is due to the 
fact that Jews support their own poor and is derived from isolated instances 
of large fortunes madehy Jews which strike the imagination. Even in the 
matter of great wealth, it is doubtful whether Jews have been so snccessful 
■s is generally thought. The great fortunes of the day are made either by 
manutactuj'e or on the Stock £scbange. Now in tbe former Jews have 
been rarely snccessful. FoliakofT, the Russian railway king, is an exception 
proving the rule, unless we grant that Strousberg, the Napoleon of industry, 
as he need to be called, deserves mention here as having made a fortune if 
he afterwards lo)'t it. It is to the twenty millionares or so who have " made 
their heap " on 'Change that tbe general impression of Jewish riches is due. 
Thn», io the list of persons leaving at their death over a quarter of a million 
personalty during the years 1873-82 which was given in the S'pee'ator, l»th 
Uay, 1883, out of 267 names only 1 1 wers Jews, two only nominally bo by 
birth. Uf these eleven no less than 7 had gained their fortune in connection 
with the Stock Exchange, three from the clothing trade and one &om tbe 
proprietorship of a newspaper. 

Finally, to remove another mie concept! on as to Jewish occupations, 
one nay notice the absence of all signs in the above investigations of the 
occupation which is so frequently associated with tbe name of Jew, viz that 
of nsury- This profession, it ia true, is generady modest and hides it.&%'.( 
under the title of banking, general dealing and &q otv, «.'a.4.S& es'so. «»eKi>^\t>^Ai^ 


wiUi the clothing trade. Bot the nnmber of these in the large towns is by 
no means so great as to characterise the whole body of Jews. And where- 
ever investigation can be made it is fonnd that though money-lending is pro- 
bably more frequent among Jews than among other <' business " men, yet it is 
only an inappreciable number who make their living by it. Thus, out of the 
2.562 heads of Russian-Jewish families which passed through Liverpool in 
1882, only seven could be identified as coming under this category. 

l^oU, — Before leaving the question of occupation we may revert to the nnmber of 
Jews in Continental armies. In 1881, the Russian Jews contributed 8,778 recruits to the 
army, out oi 224,^70 {Standard, 2nd April, 1883) and in 1882 6,210 more were added to 
these (JeiffuA CArontc/e, 15th April, 1883). As the term of service is seven years this 
would give a minimum of 35,000 Jews in the Russian army. In 1880 there were 7,652 
Jews in the Austro Hungarian army (Brattesevic Statist Jaonats, 1881, p. 417) and there 
cannot well be less than 3,500 in the orerman army. Adding another 500 for Jews in the 
French and Italian armies and we have a grand total of 46,652 Jews under arms at the 
present moment. 

It wonid be extremely desirable to Hnpplement the general etati^tica of 
Jowish occopationa given in the preceding paper hy more Rpecial details as 
to the callings and professiona of Loadon Jew^. UnfortuDatelj the English 
metropolis standa almost alone among the great citiea of the norld in being 
withnnt a staliatical bnrean ; and we ahoald seek in vain for any official 
numbering or classification of the varinus classes of Londoners. Deharred 
fr(in a full and official account of the occupation of the inhabitants of 
Loudon like thoae ne have of Berliu, Bnda-Peslh and Vienna, we must 
content ourselvea with the opportnnitiea for obtaining this knowledge 
afforded by private enterprise. In the httge compilation of Measra. Kelly 
and Co., entitled the Fast 0§ice TJirectory, 1883, and familiar to ei'ery 
mei chant, there is a Trades Director; giving the principal representatives of 
some 2,500 tradea, callings and profes^iona, which forms the only availablesub- 
etitnte for the trade atatistics of London. If we could determine the number 
of JewB whose names appeared in each of these various tradea we should 
obtain a very fair indication of the chief divisions in which the basineaa 
energies of London Jews (masters) are turned. The following invesiigaiion 
is based on an examination of these lists in which an attempt has been 
made to identify the Jewish names. 

The metbod of procedure waa aa follows : A dozen of the moat common 
Jewisb names including 877 firms were selected and the occupations attached 
to them in the Commercial Directory were classified. It was assumed that 
these would give the occnpations, about 120 in number, in which Jews " most 
do congregate." Theee tradea were now carefully examined in the Trades 
Directory and the number of Jews in each was determined as far as pos- 
sible by the character of the names. The same process waa aftertvarda 
repeated somewhat more cursorily with all the remaining ttadee, 22-i! of 
which yielded some further results. The whole investigation rests upon the 
Bucceas with which Jewish names can be identified as such, and upon this 
Babject a few words aeem here npceesary. 

In any country but England, the fact that a person poBsesaes a bibli- 
cal surname would be sufficient to identify him as a Jew. In England 
however, Pnritaniem has caused the adoption of biblical names by disaentera 
to Bome degree, and we thus find among the ancestors of Mr. John Bright 
the name of Martha Jacobs which has caused him to be credited, quite 
erronconaly, with poasesaing Jewish blood in hia veins. These Biblical 
names have been mostly adopted direct from the Bible and preserve the 
original forma, Abraham, Jacob, Samuel, &o. For aome unkaowa reason 
English Jews when adopting a eurname (for among themselves they are 
only known as the i ons of their father, e.g., Almoni ben Peloni would have 
a son Jacob ben Almoni, whose son might be Joseph ben J acob and so on 
without any constancy of surname) have taken the Biblical names ia a 
qnaM-plural form,e.n., Abrahams, Jacobs, Ac. Any names of this type aa well 
AS the leas frequent Biblical names could be at once identified as Jews of the 
" English colony." One name, and that the moat freqnent amongst English 
Jews, is also very frequent among Engliehmen or rather Welshmen. Tl 
Bftme "Davis " {= Davids) may have been adopted h^ a.t.\\i4 qI "" ■savsivRS'^'' 
that its bearers might escape that iu&tarit,\denu&i;at\oii« SB^%'«V\<3o."v^">i**-'^ 


with the more prononnced snraames. The recent fashion of chans^e of name to 
an English one of similar initial {Cf, supra, pp. 4, 6) is also due to " mimicry.'** 
Bat as we have already seen, a large majority of the Jews in English are of 
foreign extraction and we find traces of this in their names. The names of 
German Jews have in most cases been made and have not grown : they 
therefore bear the marks of manufacture upon them, as Rosenthal, KonigB- 
warter and the like. But there are many German Jews with perfectly 
Teutonic surnames which would thus escape identification. In many of 
these cases howeyer the first names were Biblical and thus were i«lentified 
as Jews by means of their " Christian " names. On the whole therefore 
I am inclined to believe that, with the general acquaintance with Jewish 
names one obtains by looking oyer charity lists and the like, but few Jewish 
names evade recognition to a careful inquirer, the chief danger being that of 
including non-Jews who have Jewish or quasi-Jewish names. Another aid 
to ident fication may be mentioned here as giving a hint as to the manners 
and customs {Culturgeschich^e the Germans term it) of English Jews. A 
very large number of Jewish names were those of ladies, and whenever the 
name itself was doubtful the fact that it was that of a widow often determined 
me on including it. Jewish women appear either to have more indepen- 
dence or to marry again less often than their countrywomen of other creeds. 
The method of determining the shares of different classes of Englishmen in 
various occupations, &c., by means of the nature of their surnames has been 
previously applied by Dr. John Beddoe, the eminent anthropologist. In 
a paper on ** Englsih Surnames from an ethnological point of view " read 
before the Anthropological Society of last year and reprinted in its Journal 
for November, 1882, Dr. Beddoe examines and classifies various lists 
including some 15,261 names and among them has included names of Jew- 
ish type which occur in the following proportions :— 

Nature of List. No. examined. Percentage of Jewiah 


Peers of England 433 00 

Baronets 684 1'3 

Magistrates of Gloucester, Hereford, and 

Somerset • 450 0*6 

Members of Parliament, England & Wales 500 2*8'.irs. ... ... ... ... ..a 315 ... ••• •'*'• 

Bo:fal Society 600 1*6 

University Club 1,159 16 

English Mayors and London Aldermen ... 500 ... ... 10 

QC.'s and Seneants 205 29 

K.C.B.'s and K.C.M.G.'s 290 O-Of 

Subscribers to a Yorkshire book 835 2 

Bristol— Museum 634 1-6 

„ Merchauts 250 0-8 

„ Lower Trades 1,000 0-7 

„ Infirmary, In patients 250 0*4 

,) „ Out-patients ... ... 1,^00 0*2 

„ Offenders 100 0*0 

Farmers, West of England 3,055 00 

Quakers, South and Mid-England 2,111 0*0 

„ Newcastle 990 


* It may be neoessary to explain this term * for the sake of the ladies and the country 
members ' *' Mimicrjr " is a technical term used in natural science to express the derioes 
by which insects and small animals adopt colours and forms resembling their surround- 
ings so as to escape the notice of their enemies. Thus there is a * walking leaf ' ineeot 
which cannot be distinguished from a leaf and thus escapes destruction. 

t Sir Saul Samuel was created E.C.M.G. just before the appearance of Dr Beddoe*a 


^roportioQB woold give 8 baroaets, 14 MemdeTa of Parliament, 6~ 
Q.O.'fi and serjeanti of Jewish faith againat 4 of the first, 5 M.F.'i, aud 3 
of the last in reality, these fignree clearly apply only to Jewisli names not 
personages. And with regard to the entry of 2 Jenlnh (jaakere I have 
satisfied rojeelf by inqaJry from Dr. Beddoe that these have merely Biblical 
names and are not. Jews by blood. In the following study of Kelly I have 
endeavoured to avoid this danger by omitting namaj which are at all 
donbtfn), preferring to err on the Bide of omission. 

With these preliminaries we may now proceed to the resalts obtained. 
In the lists of traden, solicitors, barristers, and brokers, there are some 
186,4f(l DBmes divided among ]!,£0O callings. Of these I have identified 
3,110 names as probably those of Jews scattered among 344 callings. This 
gives aproportion of 1'67 per cent. Jews contained in Kelly's list, which 
is bot slightly more than their proportion, 1'22, of the whole popu ation of 
London. It is somewhat carious that in the firat London Directory pub- 
lished in 1&77,A collectifm of the namesofthe inBrchintsUoimgin. and abuiit 
London (republished by Messrs. Chatto and Windua, 1879) the Jewish 
names number iQ out of a total of 2,000, giving a higher percentage (2'3) 
than in the latest London Uirectory. 

Turning to examine thene occupationa more closely, we may first claa- 
sify them according as they are productive or uoprodnutive of new materials 
tor commerce; in an economic sense the " middleman"is of course as productive 
as the manufacturer. Une hundred and five trades, iacluding673 individuals, 
may be classed as manufacturing of one kind and or another. The remaiader 
we may divide into merchants dealing with goods on a large scale, brokers 
mediating between buyer and seller withoat holdia^ stock, tradesm-so sell- 
ing goods over the couater, and to these may be added the varions kinds of 
professionf", including 2 midwives. Dividmg 31i callings and 3,110 indivi- 
duals among these various divisions we obtain the following table : 

Nature of Calling. No. o:f Trades. So. of ladivldaaU. 

I. — Prodnctivo. 

Manufacturing 105 672 

II. — DnprodHctivo. 

Merchants 70 637 

Brokora 39 487 

Tradesmen 115 l,liil 

Ptotesaional 15 lai 

Tutal onpiodQaUve ... 239 2,483 

It woQld be desirable to compare these resnlta with the general statis- 
tioB of England or London, bnt nnfortnnately no material exists for the 
parpose. Judging merely from Kelly the proportion of " nnprod active " 
trades (C9 per cent.) does not appear to be very mnch higher than tha 
general proportions tu mercantile London though it is undouotedly higher as 
regards the number ot individuals (81 per cent.). 

Classifying oar results on a different system we miy ddtermina the 
▼■rions branches of trade into which the main linea of Jewish activity falL 
Bumming up under " clothing" all the indobtries occupied in providing 
covering of any sort for men, and nnJer " furniture " all those whieh supply 
domestic interiors, we may analyse the various occupations in the fti'.lt^-nW-f, 



No. of 



No. of 




Merchants & Factors... 84 



... 13 



... 68 



... 11 



... 49 


Tobacco ... 

... 9 


Food ... 

... 33 


Money (coined) 

... 5 



... 19 



... 4 



... 17 



... 15 



... 17 


It woold not be yery difficult to account for the causes which confine 
Jewish commercial activity within these somewhat narrow limits. There 
comes first the tendency towards the " commerce of intangibles," as Bagehot 
( Economic Studies) terms dealing with money per se without the goods 
which it represents. This may be due to tbe long experience Jews have had 
owing to their cosmopolitan position, which enabled them to engage in intern- 
national exchange before a Stock Exchange was ever thought of. Dealing 
as a fine art, apart from the nature of the things dealt in, has been likewise 
8n accomplishment of the Jews due as much as anything to their roving 
habits. The clothing industries are always and everywhere the best repre- 
sented, and it is only in their capacity for utilising the classic ^' old clothes " 
that Jews are at all singular; perhaps, with regard to this, the degraded 
position which Jews formerly held may have helped to throw into their 
hands a business both lucrative and despised. The same explanation may 
hold good as regards furniture, the only point needing explanation being the 
predominance of Jewish interests in "antique*' furniture. The branch of 
the food industries particularly affected by Jews is that connected with 
frnit. The reason doubtless is that fruit can be sold on Sunday, and the 
difficulty of keeping two Sabbaths, Saturday and Sunday, is thus avoided 
by Jewish fruiterers, who seem, indeed, in many cases to remove all diffi- 
culty by keeping none. 

Of the remaining branches of industry mentioned above, some kind of 
explanation may be given by pointing to the cosmopolitan connections of 
Jews which enable them to obtain goods from the Continent with slightly 
more ease than others. The instruments, jewellery, stationery, toy, and 
tobacco trades are affected by this consideration which is all important in 
the case of coin. Among the other two branches of trade, ironmongery is 
often a development of trade in " old metal," while the trade in leather has 
a curious history. On the Continent up to the present generation, skins 
used to be collected from the villagers by wandering Jews who woald natur- 
ally have business relations with Jews in this country. Thus throughout 
the extent of Jewish trades one can trace the influence of social isolation, 
religions views, or cosmopolitan relations. 

We have ^till to examine the details of the number affecting each 
particular trade, but the length of the list clearly calls for some method of 
selection. The average to a trade in the list is about 9, and if we select 
those having 10 and over we get those trades which attract Jews more 
than ordinarily even among the trades in which they make any appearance. 
There are 3 trades having over 100 (Stock Exchange brokers, general 
merchants and tailors), 7 between 50 and 100, 4 between 40 and 60, 
7 between 80 and 40, 8 between 20 and 30, and no less than 5d 
between 10 and 20. These 88 occupations, containing over 10 Jewish 
names in Kelly's Trades Directory for 1883, are as follows in alphabetical 
order, the professions being in italics : — • 

^ Trade. 







Pictare frame manufr 




do. dealer 


Fancy goods importer 





Fruit merchant 






Provision merehanta 



Fumitare hcoVer 








Forriora, whuleaale 


do. fruit 


Boolm»lt6«, wholesale 

do. retail 


do. meat 


do. retail 










Brokera, City of Londo 


Skin merchanta 


do. Ummond 


Hatmanufaotdrer, whl 


Slipper manufacturer 

do. Stock Eiohange 133 

do. tetail 






Sponge merchants 






Lamp maniLfactnTeiB 


Leather morchanta 





Liu end rap ers 



Marine atocra 

do. BUQdrioB 


China dealers 



Cigar maunfacturora 


T Clink maker 




Umbrella maker 




do. stick do. 


Miscell»i,eoua dealera 

Cphol terera 


Curiosity dealer 

Wardrobe dealers 



Oatrioh feather manfa. 




do. dealer 



Diamond morchanta 




do. Cottar 





Thus we have in all 8^ traden and 6 prorsaaions baving 10 or more Jena, 
and three mclode 2,282 iadividuala, leaving only 828 iadividnals to be 
divided among the remaining 25G trades in which Jews can be traced in 
Kelly, We ahonld aubatract from these resultB the names roppated under 
different but similar headings, clockraaker and watchmaker, clothier, out- 
fitter, and tailors, &o. ; the name of Whiteley, e.g., oocnra more than a 
huodred timea. Of tlieae "doableta" there are no less than SH in the above 
list, including l,l(i4 names ol which at least the third or S8S are repeated 
and should properly be sabatracted from our total, but may be left to com- 
penaate for the many necessary oraiaBiona, 

Even the above list la not sufficient to determine vrhat are the specifi' 
cally Jewiah tradea in London. Thns, thongb there are SG Jevrish retail 
bootmakers in the list, there are 2,900 in all, and the proportion of Je»8 is 
by no means abnormal. We have clearly to examine tlie proportion of Jews 
to others in the various tradea in order to deteroiiae which are those to 
which Jews are attracted more than others. As I went throagh the various 
lists I took note of cases where Jewish names seemed anything over 2 per 
cent., and the following list givea all those trades in which Jews were 
obaeryed to have more than 8 per cent, or double their ordinary proportion. 
Many ot these have only a few individoiila altogether, and as their Jewish 
followers do not number 10 they are excluded from the preceding hat ; theae 
are marked with an asterisk in the following table : 

'Birmingham Hecohanta.,, 

'Briatol Merchant! , 

. .Brokera 

'Cane importers 7 

Cigar manufacturera SOfl ] 

I'CoiMianat taeiQ^ixi.'iA ......-• ^ 

QnTioiit<{ &eB\en ''^ 


Trade. Total Percent. 

No. Jews 

Diamond ontters 52 20 

do. merchants 183 84 

Dentists 541 4 

^Beparto merchants 5 60 

Fancy trade 270 15 

Fishmonger 706 6 

Fruiterers 580 9 

Furniture brokers 550 11 

Furfiers 4.... 78 39 

* Gilt Jewellers 8 25 

^Horsehair merchants 40 24 

Jewellers 620 6 

Meerschaum pipe mannfrs. 36 44 

Merchants, general 2,700 5 

'"Military stores 19 53 

*Money changers 7 42 

*Orange merchants 8 75 


Total Percent* 


Ostrich feather manufrs.... 46 

do. dealers 23 

Piece merchants 25 

Bag merchants 141 

' Slipper manufacturer.. 15 

*Sponge importers 8 

do. merchants 29 

Stick maker 49 

Tailors 2,13C 

Tobacconists 1,570 

do. sundries 32 

Umbrella stick maker... 36 

*Valentine maker 31 

Wardrobe dealers 371 

Watchmakers 1,039 

Total 14,058 



The only trade entirely monopolised by Jews in London is thus seen 
to be that of the cocoa-nnt merchants, all three of whom appear by their 
names to be Jews. For the rest, it will be observed that the highest per- 
centages are reached in cases where the total numbers engaged are the 
smallest. The ^' Judaism of the Stock Exchange ^* turns out to be by no 
means an extraordinary percentage of that institution (only 5 per cent). 
The chief Jewish monopolies appear in cocoa-nuts, oranges and esparto 
grass, canep, slippers, sponges, and umbrellas, furs and ostrich feathers, 
meerschaum pipes and yalentines — scarcely the commodities which rnle the 
world of prices. 

Before leaving the results obtained from Kelly's Trade Directory^ we 
may refer to a piece of unconscious humour which served to lighten a toil- 
some labour that was even more heavy in the compilation than it can be 
in the perusal. At the very head ot the list of *' pork butchers," figures, 
doubtless by an embarrassing oversight, a name unmistakeably Jewish and 
attached to an address equally Judaic, referring as it does to Middlesex 
Street, ojice and still known as '' Petticoat Lane." Though licensed by 
the Shechita Board, the butcher referred to probably owes his questionable 
position to the display of the harmless kosher ^' worsbt" which must have 
misled Messrs. Kelly's agent.* 

So much for the occupations of the Jews in London of the middle and 
upper classes. For the lowest classes we have more definite details 
from the Beports of the Board of Guardians ; but on the other hand, these 
give us no means of comparison with the followers of other creeds. The 
applicants to that body are classified by occupations, the list of which in- 
cludes no less than 104 trades. Taking the average of these for the four 
years 1879-82, we get the following order of attractiveness of various 

Tailors 384 

Hawkers 228 

Cigar makers 149 

Glaziers 127 

Boot finishers 98 

General dealers 86 

Boot and Shoe makers 44 

Gap makers 36 

Prepsers (tailors) 29 

Charwoman 26 

Slipper makers... 23 

Teachers 22 

Machinists.. 22 

Cabinet makers... 21 

Stick makers... 14 

Furriers 13 

Porters 13 

Fishmongers... 12 

Carpenters 12 

No. classified 1,528 

* Trade in pork or other forbidden food is not permitted to Jews by Rabbinic Law 
{Cf, Scbttlchaa Aruch Jore Dtahy cxvii. § 1). 

These do not by any means repreeeDt the whole nnmber employed in 
these trades, nor even the whole nnmber of thoee who have applied dnring 
the past fonr years, fur which we should probably have to adJ folly one- 
third, Bnt il doubtless represents very faithfully the trades most frequently 
adopted among the Jewi^h poor, and at the same time the trades in which 
the Jewish poor find it most diffioalt to earn a livelihood. 

But by no means all the Jews of the lower olasses are represented on 
the hooks of the Board of GnardiJns. In a previous invpstigalion wa have 
Been there are about 11,000 belonging to class G, who have either never 
applied or have ceased to apply to the Board for assistance. This class form 
the " mipaing link " in any inquiry into the condition of the .lews in London, 
Many of them, however, are connected with an institution which in its way 
has become as much a model to all similar institutions as the Board of 
Guardians of Jewish Poor has heen recognised to excel all other Boards of 
the like nalute. (Cf. Stallard, London Poor). The members of the 
Jewish Working Men's Olub are drawn from the class intermediate between 
the clients of the Board of Guardians and the tradesmen whose namet are 
recorded in the Directory. The occapations of the present members have 
not been ascertained, but in their relative importance have probably not 
changed much since the foundation of the Club. Attached to its First 
Report in 18; 5 were details of the l,i59 luembers (1,107 men. 352 women,) 
300 of whom were not specified, and the remainder distributed among 32 
trades as follows : — 



... 305 


General Dealen 

... 197 

Diam nd-wor 

Ciganuakeis ... 

... 1S4 





... 3« 


... sa 


... ai 

10 Oonfflctionora 4 

9 BookbiudBri 3 

Cabinfltniakora ,„ 29 Futriera 9 Carpenter 3 

Clerka 27 WatBrproofora 9 Coota 3 

Catlera 22 Hattera 8 Lao king-glass makere... 2 

Clickers 16 

The chief item deserving attention as containing information not yet 
given by the preceding tables is that of 77 travollere, a mode of occupation 
in which Jews are said to be very successful. 

Finally, though the Clnb has not tabulated the occupations of its 
members since its foundation, I am enabled to give the occupations of the 
members of the recently-formed Lads' Institute, which may serve to indicate 
the occupations of the coming generation in the lower social grade. 

7 Traoheci ... -.8 

6 CLairmakera 2 

B Compoaitora 3 

n DiamoQd ontters ... 3 
5 Farnilure dealers ... 2 

5 Gasiittera 2 

b Leather dreiaora ... S 

i Rag dealera ! 

i Shoemakera 2 

3 Slippermakare... ... 3 

3 Stanemaaona 2 

3 Wuodcarvera 2 

e following : agent, assistant 
bagmaker, bookbinder, bookkeeper, carpenter, cattle dealer, chi ' 

sorter, chromo-lithographer, carrier, decota^lOT,4fi^i'0*^l,X^a.TOR•'^^*'*^'*^■ 


. 41 

Uphi-jlstarcra .. 

CiEarniakera ... '. 



Bootmakers ... 


Cabin rtiDntceia 

. 14 


, 14 


. U 


Diamond Polish era . 

WaUhmaken ... 


". la 





; 8 



Cigar bnndlers,. 

Jewell era 

! 7 

Sponge dealers.. 

BeMdes there w 

as on 

e each engaged 

tant I 

K!*jes, i^ 


draper, dyer, embosser, engineer, fancy trade, glass warehoasemen, harness- 
maker, lacemaker, lampmaker, law stationer, machinist, Matzo baker, 
metal sorter, office boy, packing case maker, papier mach^ maker, piece- 
broker, picture frame maker, pipe caryer, portmanteau maker, ring maker, 
salesman, shopman, siiyersmith, skinmaker, slipper maker, stick maker, 
surrey or, tea broker, tin plate worker, ticket writer, tobacconist, toy maker, 
tradesman, turner, watchmaker, waterproofer. la all including 12 at 
school and 10 unspecified we have no less *than 9 1 different trades in which 
these 347 lads are being trained, an amount of versatility which bids fair for 
the future and points to the final disappearance of Jewish restriction in 
occupations. It is for this reason, I have thought it well to give the list 
(which has hitherto been unpublished) m extenso. Though tailoring still 
retains its supremacy, I am informed that this applies to the older lads and 
that in the pa^t three or four years a general disinclination for that occu- 
pation has been shown by Jewish parents of the lower classes. As has 
become abundantly evident from the above investigation the Jewish tailor, 
both as master and as workman, is bj far the commonest figure among the 
occupations of the Jews of London. 

Tf the genera) occnpationa of a people give iie an insight into their 
ntsDneTB and cDBtoms as a whole, the Buntber of profeHsional men included 
among them is a tolerably fair iDdication of their intellectual calibre and 
fpecial capacities. Up to very recently many of the profeasiona, notably 
that of Law, were closed to Jems throughout Europe either absolutely or by 
the fact that the rewards of the pursuit were denied to them by prejudice, 
f^otwithstandinglheserestricliona Jews are found very largely repreeented in 
the principal profeasiona in all Continental conntriea outside Rnaaia, and the 
fact has, curiously enough, been one of the chief accusations againtt the Jews 
by anti-Semitea. I purpose collecting in the present " atudy " the some- 
what fragmentary details I have been able to obtain aa to the nnraber of 
Jews in the various professions, reserving for future enumeration and inves- 
tigation the names of those Jews who have obtained distinctions in them. 

We may begin by referring to aome results already obtained aa to the 
proportions of Jews and others engaged iu professions generally. We have 
Been that in Pmaeia, 1861, S 55 per cent, of adult Jews were profeseional 
men againat S'15 among the rest of the population, while in Italy the pro- 
portions were 8-7 Jews against 3-7. But these figures apply to the whole 
conittrieB in ij^uestion, and the favourable percentages of the Jews might well 
be attributed to the fact that they mostly congregate in towna. Turning 
then to the atatistica of towns, we learn from fichwabe and Jeitteles tha^ 
esclDdine the army, 8'7 per cent, of Berlin Jews followed the professions 
■gainst 8'1 in the whole population, while for Vienna the proponions were 
5'08 and 5'32 respectivply. Twelve or thirteen yeara ago, thfrefore, the 
proportion of Jews who went in for the professions was practically the same 
in the capitals of Prussia and Austria as those of the general population. 
But, as Euclid has forgotten to remark, things which make up equal sums 
may be themselves nneqoal, and it will be desirable to examine the 
inequalities in the several profensions which make up the eqnality among 
professions in general. And we may begin with the profeBaions par 
excelUnce, Law and Medicine. 

Laie, Bchwabe gives under the rubric "Juaticfl" the proportiona of 
Jews as only 1-6 per cent, against a general proportion of 41 engaged in 
this profession. I do not exactly know whether under this term he includes 
administrative ofhcials generally, but this result seems opposed to all one 
bears as to the prevalence of Jews in the legal professions, especially in 
North Germany. For Prussia generally nine years later than 8chwabe'a 
results, i.e., in 1880, I have the following list, which gives an entirely 
different account. It comes from an anti-Semitic aonrce {Deutucha WatM.^ 
i. 2l7),«ildmuat, therefore, be received with ftomeattft^«i\iaTi,'C ' " 


with mnch that Hait Lasker has heen recently saying in America. The titles 
scarcely allow of adequate translation into English : 

All. Jews. Per cent. 

Oberlandsgerichts— T?athen ... 234 li* 7*7 

Jjandgericata — Prasidenten 91 7*7 

Do. Directoren 176 4*0 

Richtern 3,368 315 9-3 

Staatsanwalten 217 6 2-8 

Gerichts— Assessoren 299 69 19 7 

Do. Referendaren 3,226 790 24-5 

7,606 1,212 16-9 

As Jews are only 1*3 percent, of the Prussian population, this list 
gives a preponderating proportion of Jewish lawyers, and the last two items 
seem to promise still greater proportions in the future. At the Juristio 
faculty in Berlin in 1880 the proportions were still higher. Out of 7 
ordinary and 4 extraordinary Professors of Law, Jews claimed two of each 
class. A similarly suspicious source (Der Talm/ud, 1880, p. 29) asserts that 
in Vienna out of 479 Advocates 178 were Jews, though Jeitteles gives only 
38 Jewish Advocates in 1869, in which year the percentage of Jews in the 
legal profession was 0*59 against 0*83 in the general population. The 
higher proportion receives some confirmation from the statistics of the 
several faculties of the Austrian Universities given by Windt {Statist. 
Monafs. 1879, pp. 577, &c.) and tabulated by Oettingen {Moral Statisf^ 
Tafei 81). In 1870 the Jewish legal students formed 11 per cent, of 3,196 
in all (= 352) and in 1878 they were 16 per cent, of 4,491 (=» 720). In 
the other halt of the Empire the tendencies of Jewish youth towards the 
legal professions seem even greater if we are to believe Hnnfalry {Ethics 
graphie von Ungarn, p. 874), who asserts that out of the 432 Jews study- 
ing at the Hungarian Universities in 1872, no less than 252 belonged to the 
Juristic faculty. Schwicker {Statistik v. TJngam^ p. 657) also mentions 
that ot the 1,744 students at the Eechtsacademie in 1873, 77, or double their 
proportion, were Jews. 

In explanation of this tendency to a legal life it may be observed thftt 
the chief intellectual pursuit of Jews in the immediate past has been con* 
nected with the Talmud, a work eminently legal in co&tents and tone, which 
by the method of its study has been well adapted to develop a capacity far 
seeing and stating the pros and cons of any possible subject. The general < 
acquaintance with practical life obtained from residence in cities must also 
be ot use in legal study, and the ^' push and patience," so characteristic of 
Jews is found combined in them with another important element of legal 
success — self-confidence. Before leaving the subject it may be remarked 
that the Jews of England do not seem as yet to have the legal enthusiasm of 
their Continental brethren. I could only ascertain 27 barristers and 47 
solicitors out of the tolls of 2,640 and 4,920 respectively, proportions rather 
under than over that of the Jews in London. On the Continent, however, 
law is a State profession, and offers a securer livelihood, if less brilliant 
prizes than here, while the study of the Talmud has been less widely 
spread in the past among English Jews than among any other body c^ 

Medicine. Of all callings that of medicine has been the one which Jews 
have been allowed to prosecute in the past with least interruption. Whatever 
their attitude towards the Jews in general, the ruling classes have always 
fabmitted with tolerable good-will to be cured by Jewish doctors. And it 

natnnl that the Jewish intellect shoiiM tarn with predilection townda 

science and art of health. IhiiB, at Berlin, we gather from Schwabe that 
in 1871 there were four times as niBny Jewa in the medical profesi " 
the whole popnlation (2'9 ngainat 0*8 per cent.) While at the Berlin Uni- 
Tersity exactly half the 22 medical profeasora were Jews {Der Talmud, 
p. 47) ; and Jeitteles giveH the Jewish proportion of doctors at Viennn, 
1869, ae nearly donhle (l'3l against 073). Bervi {Qll Israeliti, p. 300) 
calculatee that there was 1 doctor among every 88-5 Jews in Italy against 
I in 1,150 among Italians in genera!. Even the fair sex seem to share the 
tendency among Jews, judging from some Kneeian statistics, which inform 
□s that ont of 430 female medical students in Hnssia, 1877, no less than 73 
were Jewesses {Jtwish Ckron., 27 April, 1877). 

Bat it is in Anstria that the predominance of Jews in medicine 
is most decisively marked. In 1880 there were said to be ia 
Vienna H'i Jewish doctors out of a total number of 1,097 (Dc 
Tahmiil, p. 29), which we can the more readily believej as ia 
1869 Jcittelea enamerates 287. Ths ranks of doctors who sppcialize 
in one particular disease (if that is the meaning of " Sppzialiirzte ") 
seem to be monopolised by Jews, who made np 38 out of 40 in Vienna, 1880 
(ibid). And if we refer to the nnmber of medical slu'Ients at the Austrian 
nnivBrsities, the same high proportion strikes us. B. Windt, who has a 
special paper on this subject (Statists. Monate., 1881, p. 453), points out 
that whereas in 18.^1 Jews were 16 1 per cent, of the medical stodents 
of the Aaatrian universitieB in 1880 they were no less than 28 per cent. 
In the oiher hali of the Empire the proportions sefm to be still more favour- 
able to Jews. Out of the 3,207 doctors in Hungary, 1877, 1,031 were 
Jews, and in the capital 248 Jews were serving as doctors against 310 
of other creeds (Jewish Ghmn., 8 Feb., 1878). It is not at all astonishing, 
therefore, to find Servi recording {I.e. p. 311) that at the Medical Congress 
at Bnda-Pesth, 1864, there were 68 Jews out of the whole number of 407. 
Indeed, as regards A ustro- Hungary, one might modify the old proverb and 
8»y tXbi tres inediei, duo Jiidfei, 

Here again we may repeat what we have said under the preceding 
profession. English Jews do not appear to share the tastes of their Con- 
tinental brethren as regards their choice of a prof«ssioD, (July 23 Jewish 
names appear on the roll of the Royal College of Hurgeona, while not one 
Jew has the right of placing F.H.C.P. (Lond.), after his name. 

Olerijy. We may follow law and medicme with the profeesion which 
shares with them the qualification of " learned." It is somewhat cnrious 
that Jews appear to need the services of less clergymen than any of the 
great religions bodies. Being " a kingdom of priests" (Ex. xix. 6) they 
can and do perform many of the sacred tunctions (and theoretically they 
conld perform all) without the intervention of a class of men set apart for 
the porpose. The lower social standing of Jewish clergymen among their 
coreligionists, as compared with priests of an Established Church, may have 
something to do with their paucity of numbers. The following table indi- 
cates the relative (reqnency with which Rabbis are fonnd among Jews in 
Tarions conutries as compared with priests among Roman Oatbolics and 
clergymen among Protest^ants. The details out of which I have formed it 
are : the number of Rabbis in Italy (= 49) as given in Jew. Chron. 14th 
October, JfiWl, 390 in Anstria, 1869, as reported by Bdiinnoftt <0i'-O''»-«'^- S^- 
Mmt.), 129 in Germany, 1871, (excludinsTi\i%6\8.')\.i ?.m%A\«^^^«|^^ 
^^ 2 ^^^^^ 


actual proportions 'for Hungary occor in Schwicker (I.e. p. 605) and I hayd 
taken the 25 Jewish clergy men of London as exemplifying the supply for 
England generally. The proportions for the other denominations oocor iH 
Oettinger {Moral Btatistik, p. 626) : 

^ . ^ Namber of laymen to each clergyman among 

Country. Year. j^^^^ OathoUcg. Protestants. 

Austria 1869. 2,150 1,143 1,734 

Hungary 1869. 1,578 1,420 932 . 

Germany 1871. 1,420 812 1,600 

Italy 1880. 900 267 — 

England 1883. 1,884 1,320 908 

It mast be observed that I have omitted to reckon among Rabbis the 
Cantors who are attached to every important congre^^ation, and who often 
officiate as ministers as well as Cantors in minor congregations. Of these 
there were 258 in Austria and 228 in Germany at the above dates, and the 
proportions would be considerably altered if these had been added. But as 
choirmasters are certainly not enumerated in the other lists it would have 
been misleading to have included Cantors among Rabbis. The above figures 
refer only to men whose sole function is to give spiritual direction to their 

Liter aturc—X^vX^k^ the preceding, the life of letters, though recog-^ 
nised as professional is not organised, and it is therefore impossible to give 
any very precise determination of the number of Jews who enter a literary 
life. The only detail of the kind that I have been able to obtain refers to 
Vienna for 1869, as given in the admirable book of Jeitteles, Bie CuUiis- 
gemeinde der Israelicen in Wien, 1873. He mentions (p. 74) that 124 
Jews led a literary life in that city, forming 45 per cent, of the adult 
workers, against 0*13 of the general population. This refers in reality to 
the number engaged in the press, since we learji (p. 164) that of these 124 
no less than 11 tf were editors and journalists. For information as to 
those literary Jews who earn fame at their calling we may refer to the die- 
tionaries of contemporary literary biography. I find that among the 4,525 
names of literary celebrities contained in A. de Gubernatis' Dizion, hiograf. 
degli scrittori contemporane% 1879, there are 62 Jewish names (1*4 per 
cent.), while in Bornmiilier's Schriftsteller-Lexikon^ 1882, there occur no 
less than 65 Jewish names out of the 2,780 contained in it, giving the large 
proportion of 2*6 per cent. The different proportions in which Jews occur 
in the two works in question may be attributed to the fact that the former 
naturally gives greater prominence to writers in the Romance languages in 
which few Jews write, while the latter gives equal predominance to the Ten- 
tonic authors among whom Jews are naturally better represented. Another 
reason for the difference may be found in the fact that Gubernatis in- 
cludes scholars in his enumeration of writers, whereas Bornmiiller restricts 
his entries more closely to litterateurs in the sense of imaginative writers : 
the former may be said to represent scholarship, the latter belles -lettres, in- 
cluding the highest class of writing for the press. As for Jewish writers 
in the strict sense of the term as applied to writers on Jewish subjects, I 
calculate that C. Lippe's Bihliographisches Leodkon, 1881, contains the 
names of some 968 contemporary Jews wbo have written on Jewish topics. 

Press, — It is usually asserted that Jews are represented on the Press 

in very great proportions. We have seen that in Vienna, 1879, they had 

%ree times as many editors and journalists as their proper proportion, and 

lis would be about a fifth of all the journalists in the Austrian capital. 


roimed bnt one-foutteenth of the popnUtion, 

Statistical Animal for Berlin, 1 883, jast issuad, Jews are 4'8 in the popu- 
lation, and haye 1 78 out of the 2,059 engaged in press work in the PrnHpian 
capital,i.e.,abonttwicetheirproperproportioii(Zer, T7oi;Aejis/il. 12Sept.,18S3). 
The ami -Semi tea, while aseerting that Jews had a preponderating influence 
on the German Presp, point to far more newspapers whose perusal they recom- 
mend as '* independent of Jewish influence," Thus I have before me an 
anti-Semitic broadsheet (see mj anti-Semitic bibliography, TruhneT'g Record, 
1883, No. Ill), which recommends 20 papers of this kind as against 12 
which " write in the Jewish interest." And among the latter the fact that 
these newspapers spoke in favour of, or did not speak against, the Jews, 
does not by any means prove that they were edited or written chiefly by Jews. 
And Prof. Bresslau, in his admirable answer to Treitschke {Zut Judenfrage, 
pp. 6, 7, and 19), enamerates 3? of the principal German journals which 
were either anti-Semitic or unconnected in any way with Jews. He ex- 
presses his opinion that Jews are chiefly to be found in the second and third 
rate German papers. As for papers written by Jews and for Jews, Dr. 
Singer, Presae und Judmihum, (1882;, gives a list of 102 Jewisii joumals 
in thirteen different languages. As the United Kingdom with five times 
the population of the Jews of the world had only 381 religioas papers and 
jonmals (May Presi Guide, 1881, p, 8), Jews may be said to be very well 
provided with papers addrest-ed to their special needs. 

Art — In Art the Jews of Vienna were slightly inferior to the general 
popolation in point of numbers, 0'64 per c«n(. against 0-73, The principal 
details of interest among the 174 Jews and Jewesses who went to makeup 
that proportion may be summed up as follows : — 

Mnslciaaa. Actora. Singers. Dancera, Paiaters. 

Jews 34 30 13 i 13 

Jewess ea 2 24 15 4 6 

It is impossible to say in which of these branches of art Jews were under 
their proportion. Probably in the last item, painting. It is very often 
Baid that Jews are utterly wanting in ihe power of pictorial representation. 
Gertainly they have no very great names in the modern history of painting. 
Yel they appear in the exhibitions in very large nnmbers. Thus in the 
Uoyal Academy of 1881, there were 23 Jewish exhibitors ontof 1,086 (18 
painters, 2 architects, 2 sculptors, and 1 etcher), and in the Paris iSalon of 
1883, no less than 78 Jews appeared in the list (48 painters, 14 designers, 
9 ecnlptors, 6 engravers, and 1 architect), though 21 of these were 
foreigners {Jew. Chronicle, 6 Jnlj, 1883). And in the Paris Exhibition of 
1867, three Jewish painters received gold medals ont of the 40 honoured 
with that decoration (Servi, p, 315). These facts seem to indicate that » 
fair proportion of Jews adopt an artistic life, it they obtain no great celebrity 
in their career. I regret that I can And no substantial details as to the 
number of Jewish musicians, Ihe fact that a Jew obtained one of the fifty 
Bcholarships at the new Royal College of Music, whereas one in five hundred 
wonid represent the proper proportion, seems to confirm the popular im- 
pression as to the Jewish lore and aptitude for music, and this may be further 
confirmed by the fact that of the six musical knights in England no less than 
three are of Jewish blood. Ihe same absence of statistical data prevents 
our judging of the histrionic powers generally attributed to Jews. We find 
Jewish actors at Home in the first century, in England in 1128, to. lis; 
at the beginning of the Bevenlecuth centiitj. &.u4 aXXJ&ft ^\twflA''i\a«L 


of the best known actors of the German stage are Jews ; it was said, e,g. , 
that one-half of the Meiningen Company which Tislted England in 1882, 
were of Jewish blood. In 1878 a company of actors, headed by Herr 
Fischer, traversed Hungary, all of them being Jews {J&w, Chron.j 23 Ang., 
1878), and there are certainly many wandering tronpes of actors who play 
in Jiidisch-Dentsch, some of whom yisit England from time to time.* 

Army. Very few Jews appear to adopt the army as a profession. This 
is especially the case in Germany where it is a sort of lex non scripta that 
no Jew shall be an officer. Thus we haye seen that in Berlin only 0*7 per 
cent. Jews followed the profession of arms (and these were probably military 
snrgeons) against ten times as many (7'4) in the general population of the 
Prussian capital. In Italy, howeyer, the proportions are more fayourable, 
according to Servi (p. 802), there being 87 Jewish officers at the time of 
his writing, so that out of every five Jews serving in the army, one was an 
officer against one in twelve in the Italian army as a whole. This might 
however indicate less privates rather than more officers did we not know 
the contrary to be the case, 1*4 per cent, of all Italian Jews being in the 
army against 1*1 of all Italians. In France Jewish officers appear to have 
extraordinary success. Of the 18 Generals of Division, 2 (Lambert and 
S^e) are Jews, while 8 out of the 87 Generals of Brigade are Jews {Jewish 
Chronicle^ 14 Sept., 1888). In England I know only of one Jewish officer 
of high grade ( M.ajor Goldsmid) in the regulars, though there are several 
in the auxiliary forces. I may add here that as regards the rank and file 
of the English army in India, there were 250 Jews (Beni Israel) out of 
177,821 in 1877, which is probably the reason why Brattesevic {Statist. 
Monatsft. 1881, p. 417) gives the Jewish percentage of the British army as 
0*46. In the home forces the Board of Deputies could find only 4 Jews 
who would take advantage of the furlough for Passover (Report for 1888). 
With the army one may couple the navy, in which, as is natural, one rarely 
finds a Jew. There is, however, an Austrian Hear- Admiral, and the late 
Commodore Uriah P. Levy, of the United States fleet, was a Jew. (Rost. 
1. c, p. 54). 

Politics. Though one can scarcely speak of politics as a profession 
in the sense of a means of livelihood, political life — as with the other callings 
mentioned above— requires intellectual capacity, and is directly intended to 
benefit the world. I have compiled the following table from details given in 
the Jewish Chronicle after the last election of the lower Houses of Parlia- 
ment in the various countries. 




Extreme Left. 


Proper Proportion. 

Bngland 1 

Hungary 3 

Italy 6 

Total 10 












I have to remark that Italy seems quite exceptional in regard to the 
number of members of the Bight, and I am uncertain how far this term 
may imply Conservative tendencies as it does in Germany, France, and 
England. Hungary, again, differs from all the other countries in having 
a much smaller number of Jewish Deputies than would correspond to the 
proportions in the population generally. ' 

* The managers of four of the chief Paris Theatres (Ambigu, Grand OptrOf Gymnase 
^'>rU 8t, Martin) are Jews, as well as the lessee of Drary Lane. 

Gheig is DOWaclayB pursued as a means of liTelihood, snd as snch c 
bardlf be claBsed otherwise than arnDDi; the professioDs. At the i 
International Tournament in London, 1883, among the 14 competitors in 
the Maater Tournament, no lesR than eix nere Jens, inclnding the chief 
representfttivf B of France, Anatria, and England, In the reauU two Jews 
(Steinitz and Zuherton) were first and eccond ; another, Engliech, was 
bracketed filth, and a loorth Jew^, Rosenthal, obtained the compensation 
prire for the competitor who e cored beat againat the seven prize-winnera. 
Thus one half the prizes fe'l to Jews, For several years the Jewish Work- 
ing Men's CInh has vron the Chesa Prize competed tor b; all the similar 
clnba in London. I find also that there have been no less than 25 Jewish 
writers on chess, some of them of very early date (Steinschneider, Sckaah 
bei den Juden), and all of them probably playera of great skill, 

professors. We may conclude theae somewhat deanltory scraps about 
profesaiouB with a lew detaila as to the namber of professora at Univeraitiea. 
ProFeaaor Bresslau mentions that there are 70 Jewish professors in German 
universities, and as theae include 1,KOO in all, Jewa appear to have about 
their proper proportion. Another source {Der Talmud) mentions 47 as the 
namber of ordmary professors, which wonld imply a much larger number of 
extraordinary profesaore. The same source givea an intereating table of the 
professors at Berlin. 

Theology. Law. Medicine. Philoanphj. 

Jews. CbriatiBOa Jews. Chriitisni. Jews, ChriBtiaai. Jews. ChciBtiaui. 

Ordinary 7 2 7 3 10 1 87 

Uxtraordinary 17 2 i B 12 9 30 

Priyat ddcBQt ! 13 Si !G 6 26 

Or in all, 6 ordinary, 20 extraordinary professorships, and 29 Reader- 
sbips held by -lews, to 61, 53, and 57 respectively by Christians, In 
England I find that amonR the 259 professors at Oxford, Cambridgp, 
Dnrham, Univeraity, and King's Colleges, London; Owen'a College, Man- 
chester ; and the new colleges at Bristol, Birmingham and ShefQeld, there 
are sis Jewish profesporp, viz., Prolesaor J. J, Sylvester, Savilian Professor of 
Mathematics in the Univeraity of Oxford ; Hev. D. W. Marks, Profesaor of 
Hehrew at University College ; Professor A. Schu«ter, Professor of Applied 
Mathematics ; Professor T. Theodores, of Oriental Laneuages ; and Profeasor 
JJrechfeld, of Pathology, at Victoria University ; and Profeasor P. Barnett, 
nboholdatheChairofEnglishLiCeratureat Firth College, Sheffield. Knglish 
anli- Semites, if there were aucb persons, might point to the fact that Jews 
have t*n times their proper proportion in having six Professors. In 
France there are 4 Jewish Membres de I'lnstitct, and la Italy Servi men- 
tions 17profeBBors at the Italian universities in 1869 {Gii IsraeUli, p. 29^. 
It wonld have been interesting to know bow many ot these Jewish Chairs 
were for branches of nattiral science in which Jews, I know not why, are 
said not to excel. In the prospectus of the International Scientific Series 
which appeared in 1872, oat ot 41 works projected and placed in the hands 
of the most eminent scientists, 4 were to be by Jews (Bernstein, Rosenthal, 
Coha and Steinthal), and of these the 2 former have appeared in the 48 
Tolumes hitherto issued. 

The foregoing detaila may serve to determine how far the Jewish 
intellect is directed towards thelifeintellectualat the present day. No very 
definite result can be arrived at, owing to two facts. In the first ^jlwift "Jass 

I are in most instances derived either fioui 3eVw'ii\fi«Tn.riv«^'^Ni«3o.^ssSi«.- 


ally only excerpt those details which serre to indicate the snperiority of 
Jewish intellect, or from anti-Semitic pamphlets, which, cnrioasly 
enough, do the same, probably for the purpose of creating envy. 
And, secondly, even if we find a larger proportion of Jews ' as a 
whole adopting the learned and other professions, this is only what 
might be expected, owing to the fact that the majority of Jews live in towns, 
and their seeming snperiority might entirely disappear on comparison with 
the town populations. We may, perhaps, be able to ascertain the compara- 
tiye yalue of Jewish intellect by examining the numbers and specialitiei of 
Jewish celebrities. 


The student of statistics lias to take the three chief epochs in man's 
life — birth, marriagSj death — In a different order from the chronological 
seqaence aa it effects individuals, and from the conversational " births, 
deaths, and marriages," which is due to a sense of rhythm. For it is upon 
the numher and nature of marriages entered npon by a people that the whole 
"movement "of population depends. In particular, the age upon which 
marriage ia entered upon determines such weighty points as these : the 
average duration of a generation (Rumelin, Jtedtn I.), the fertility of mar- 
riages and the fecundity of wives, the physical and mental health of children 
(Matthens Duncan), and, some authorities say, the predominant sex of the 
offspring, Jews as a rale differ from their neighbours in all these points, and 
also vary in the number and nature of their marriages which thus attract 
the earliest attention of the inquirer into Jewish biostatics, 

Frequericy. And first as to the relative'' number of marriages entered 
into by Jews as compared with their neighbours. Here there is an almost 
universal consensus of statistics showing that Jews marry less than others 
in proportion to their numbers as the following table will show, which gives 
the number of marriages per thousand of population. 

Country. Eiiucb. Jews. CbHftlana. Autborilr- 

Anntiia 1884 48 H3 Jelttfllea ■- CuItiiHiDaieInd«," p. M, 

, 1870 63 as B6rgiiiiinn,"fl^lrage," p.M. 

BsTsria .'.'.'.'.'.' .'.'.'.' 1B36-0S HI Js * vtrBBo'ftom Benmann, ibid. 

Tna B Kib- 9 gi st Lfl(ii>!''. " IdididiiU^k," p. BS. 

PrnmlB lS'i3^0 Tl *9 HoBroanio" Jour.Stiu Bac-„"1B4* p. T». 

, \MU-lt 7B K KireSi. "ZriLPrBIJIll. Stat ," 1B84 p. 148. 

Bnula lB5a-6S 61 9S Loiinyf,p6i. 

„ l(l'7 l>7 lOD "MoavemeDDi1(ilaSu&>leen]MT,"p.l>, 

ToBcani leai "o 8) LeBNj[ p. bo. 

Victoria Ifl7I-B0 G3 C3 " Viowrifln Year Pont," I8SI, p.n7. 

It has to be remarked that the low numbers for Austria are usually 
explained as being due to the large numbers of Jewish mnrrieges which are 
only celebrated by the religious ceremony without the formality of a civil 
registration being attended to. Apart from this, the frequency of Jewish 
marriages, as indeed for mairiages generally, diminishes as we advance from 
hast to West. This is also observable between different parts of Germany. 
Bergmann shows that during the years 1878-4 in East Prussia, Jewisli 
marriages were to Christianas SO to 90 per l,000,in Westphalia as 67 to 84, 
and in the bhine district as flO to 79. 

In all these cases the frequency of Jewish marriages was less than tliat 
of Christian. The only exceptions I have been able to observe were in 
Bucharest, in 1878, where, if my calculations are correct, JewJ-sK ■Q^'asro.^'i 


were to Christian as 127 to 65 per 1,000 (StatUtlea dinBomania 1878, Fri- 
ma' iaorasuluiBucuresd inanmd 1878), in Algiers, 1878, where Jewish marri- 
ages were to others as 105 to 75 per 1,000, and in Upper Silesia where 
Bergmann asserts the same. It is so generally thought that Jewish 
marriages are more frequent than those of others that the opposite result 
deduced from the above table requires consideration. Some explanation 
might be given of the variation by the well-known fact that marriages are 
less frequent in towns than in the country. But Lumelin has shown (" Stadt 
und Land" in Reden I.) that this is mainly due to a fluctuating population 
of young country people in towns who return to the country to mskjrrj. 
The greater proportion of Jewesses to Jews may have some effect in reducing 
the marriage rate (v. inf> a). Jn Austria and Hungary, again, the memory 
of former restrictions on marriage might have produced a custom of restraint 
in marriage. Further, the greater poverty of Jews, combined with their 
greater prudence, might tend to lessen marriage ; though usually the mar- 
riage rate varies inversely with the social condition. On this point it is 
worthy of observation that the marriage rate has been slowly advancing in 
Prussia and Eussia (see the table) and in Hungary where it was 54 in 1864 
and 78 in 1873 (Schwicker, I.e.) A more important factor, in my opinion, is the 
greater number of children living among Jews which naturally lessens the num- 
ber of marriages when reckoned accordmg to the whole population. J hus in 
Pesth, I find the number of Jews and Jewesses married of those whose ages 
are over 20 slightly superior to the rest of the population (Korosi Pest in 
1881, p. 207), though the marriage rate there, as elsewhere, is below that 
of the general population. The same holds good for Prussia, where in the 
year 1861 the percentage of married Jews and Jewesses of those above 14, 
was 51 and 55 respectively against 46 and 48 among Christians. Altogether 
I am inclined to consider the less marriage-rate of Jews to be only appa^ 
rent as I shall also endeavour to show to be case with their birth-rate. 

Age of Marriage. — As previously observed, this is the most important 
consideration concerning marriage, affecting as it does, the physical, mental, 
and social traits of a people. Under this rubric it is chiefly important to 
know the proportion of either sex marrying below the age of 20, and between 
the ages of 20 and 30, and I have been able to obtain details on these 
points for the Jews of East Europe only, though these, of course, form 
the majority of European Jews. The following table exhibits the results, 
the figures for Eussia being calculated from an official work, Mouverrient 
de la populafdon de la hvssie d^Europe en 1867, puolished by the Statisti- 
cal Bureau of St. Petersburg, after the usual delay of 10 years. The details 
for Moscow and t>t. Petersburg are from Korosi Stabstique inr.ernational e des 
grandes vUles, 1876, those for Posen and Pesth from Bergmann Beitrdgp^ 
and those for Austria from Lagneau Denomhrement p. 28. The percentage 
relating to women are placed in brackets and in the case of Austria and 
Pesth the figures for men apply to all marrying up to 30 : 

Place. Epoch. Under 20. 20—30. 

' Jews. Christians. Jews. ( hris' ians. 

Austria 1861-70. — (23-6) — (15-1) eS'SCSS-?) 68-6 (67 6 • 

Moscow 1868-72. 6*2 (49-3) 4-0 (29-9) 76-6(48 6) 66-9 (66-6) 

Pesth 1868-70. - (38-4) —(20-6) 67-6(67-8) 61-0(631) 

Poeen 1867-73. 0-7 (17-8) 1*7 (17*1) 66-7 (69-1) 69.4 (63-2 . 

Knsfria 1867. 47 6(63-2) 36-9(66-7) 37-9(29-4) 42-9(33-7) 

8t.Peter8lmrg.. 1866-72. 9*6 i66-9) 8 7(27*3) 6^*4 (30*6) 48-1(61-4) 

From this table it is clear that the proportion of Jewish marriages which 
ike place when both parties are under 30 is greater in every case except 


fPo^en, and that if in gome casps the percentage of those manyihg t 
20 and 30 is less than that of ChrlstianB, it is simply because bo many n 
had been married off before 20. The caae of Posen forms an exception to 
this, and Bergmann shows that the same is true of all East Pmsaia (Beitrdge 
82-4). The relatively early marriage of Jews was also noticed by Hoffmann 
who mentions that 78'6 per cent, of Jewish marriages in Prussia 1822-40 
were nnder 40, against 74-fi ot the general population (Joum. Stat. Soc. ix, 
p. 80). And yet though early, Jewish marriages, at least in Anstro- 
Hnngary and Prussia, are probably not too early from a physiological point 
of view. Bergmann obserres that the proportion of Jewesses who marry at 
the most favourable age of between 30 and BO is greater than for the rest of 
the popnlation. Korosi, whose various works are a mine of information on 
Jewish vital statistics, gives elaborate tables in his Slatiet. Jahrbudi, 1873 
(p. 37), which show that the Jews have tho least " abnormal " marriages 
(bride under 18 or over 40, bridegroom oyer40) 12 per cent, against 35 per 
cent. Catholics and 33 Protestants. On the other hand, it is clear from the 
&bore table that the same does not apply to Etussia which holds in bondage 

1 more than half the Jewish population of Europe. 

It is an interesting problem to investigate the causes which led to the 
early marriage of Jews.* It might be suggested that owing to the well- 
known greater proportion of male births among Jews there would be a greater 
number of Jews to compete for the hands of their female coreligionists. But 
the following table shows the remarkable and hitherto unsuspected fact that 
the proportion of Jewesses to Jews is even greater than '.he general propor- 
tion of women to men. I have compiled it from the materials given in the 
titatiatiqua intematitniaie issued by the Stockholm Bureau in 1876, which 
gives (pp. 96-102, " populalioitpar cuUes ") the numbers of Jews and Jewesses 
in various countries about 1870. The proportion for the general population 
are given for the same period in Martin's H'atesman'i Year Book 1877 


^^^^^k Womea to IDOliIeii. 

^^^^^B Jewa, General. Jcva. Gmertl. 

^^^^1 niTarin . - - - 

Denmark IIO 103 ItaIt -. 

g« 101 PniBrfa 

lOf 103 Buvia 

Bungnri' tOJ l 

Here, except in countries of small Jewish population like Ireland and 
Sweden, we have the proportion of Jewesses to Jews either equal or greater 
than that of females to males in the general population. The only cause I 
can suggest for this is the westward migration of young Jews seeking their 
fortune. It is difficult to say whether this preponderance of females would 
or would not lead to earlier marriage, though it could doubtless have a slight 
influence on lowering the frequency of marriage among Jews since more 
Jewesses proportionally must ipso facto remain unmarried. 

But tho earlier marriages of Jews, especially in Eastern Europe, are 
due to social and religious caoses. The age of marriage, economists tell 
us, is determined by the "standard of comfort" reached by the general 

• A point of Bome importaDoe in __ . — , 

of pnbflrty occnr among Jenesses. Tho fact is noticed by Muller, 
TraUi de la Meastruai'ion 1S68. p. GSD, wbo gives tbe average ago of its 
veanfor Jenenaee agairul IfrSli far Rnceiane, while Webei in a rapi 
tbk St. PetarBbutR Medic. Wtxhetu. 1833, mfomiB db that JewesBss 
iMfon 1! jeuB old (12 6 per cent.) and tbe miuimam after 18 (!'£). 


popolatioD, and I hare already pointed oat the extremely low social condition 
of Jews in Eastern Europe. Still more important is the religions factor, 
the influence of the Babhis in promoting early marriages being quite as 
strong as that of Catholic priests. This action of the religious authorities 
is based, as is well known, on the prescriptions of the Talmud, and it is 
highly probable that social conditions in Babylon 1,500 years ago have had their 
effect in determining the early age of at least Busso-Jewish marriage. Fot 
there is a clear distinction between the utterances of Palestinian authorities 
and of the Babylonian doctors on this point, the former sometimes fixing 
the limit desirable for a man's marriage at 24 (Kidd. 30a), the latter as early 
as 14 (ibid. 29a.) And the practice seems to have varied even more than 
the precept, for whereas B. Levi, a Palestinian Amora, incidentally states : 
*' A man usually marries at 30 or 40" {Shi'^, Rabba vii., 14), B. Huna (fl. 
250 A.D.), who lectured at the Academy at Sura, gave utterance to the cele- 
brated dictum, " He who is 20 years old and has not taken unto himself a 
wife destroys all his days with sinful thoughts " (Kidd. 29b), thereby laying 
down the principle which has ruled Jewish marriage ever since. Yet it is 
extremely probable that this wide divergence between Palestine and Babylon 
was due to the easier conditions of life in the latter country, wher 3 the date- 
palm afforded all the requirements of life in somewhat the same way as the 
cocoa-nut palm in Polynesia (cf. Hehn. Culturpflanzeriy p. 217). It is 
curious, if the above reasoning be adopted, that the prevalent Jewish custom 
of early marriage is due in the last resort to the fertility of the palms of 

Whatever be the causes of the early marriages of Jews, there can be 
little doubt as to their effects. Not to speak of their influence on the 
" movement " of the Jewish population, which will concern us later, it is 
obvious that the early unions of the Jews of Eastern Europe have much to 
do with their poverty. While the standard of comfort conditions marriage, 
marriage helps to determine the standard of comfort. It is easy to se5 how 
early marriage handicaps Jews in the struggle for existence by causing them 
to give, in Bacon's phrase, "hostages to fortune." It is possible too that 
marriage before maturity may have a deleterious effect on the physical 
development and account in some measure for the small height and girth 
of Jews. Another evil attached to this custom is the absence of pre-nuptial 
love between the contracting parties. Marriage becomes almost a matter of 
business and gives rise to a specialised middle- man, the Shadchan or ** mar- 
riage broker," who occasionally makes his appearance in the English law 
courts when either side is dissatisfied with the bargain. The custom again, 
tends to cut short the experiences of the bride and prevents her becoming a 
helpmate meet for her husband, narrows her views of life and contracts the 
horizon of her interests to her own household. On the other hand such 
marriages tend to promote social purity, make the Biblical enactment 
(Lev. xix. 29) operative to the present day, give young people steadiness at the 
time of life most liable to temptation and cause the young spouse to be a 
better housewife, if a less expert woman of the world. 

* It is right that I should add that an erudite friend suggests the influence of Zo* 

roastrianism on Babylonian marriage customs, as given by Schorr in Hachalue, But this 

would only remove the chain of causes another link back, since Zoroaster might equally 

Tell be influenced by the social possibility of early marriage due to the fruitful pahns of 



Before Icavmg tbe qaestion of nge I maj remark that in Buda-Feath 73 
per cent, of Jewish, hasbanda are older than their wirea against 64 of the 
genera] population, Ifot only are there more husbands older, but the dif- 
Eerenue oE age is greater, au arerage of 8'7 years in the case ot Jews, 6'7 
jears in the ease of others {Korosi Pest in 1881, pp. 216-20). Further 
the earlier age of Jewish marriages, when compared with their less frequency, 
confirms ns in our suspicions that ths sraaller marriage-rate of Jews is only 
apparent and would not hold for adults over 20. 

Civil Condition. — Another point worthy of notice is the number of 
marriages which take place between bachelors and spinsters, techni- 
cally termed " protogamous marriages" as compared with those between 
widowers and spinsters, &c. The following table summarises the results I 
have been able to obtain on this point, the numbers giving the percentage of 
bachelors and spinsters in Jewish and Christian marriages, the apinsters 
being placed in bracketa : 

Plus. Epoch. JawB. ChrMtani. Aathorltf. 

Moscow'.','.',',".'.'.'.'. less-Jl. Bj(8a) 81(88) KorOai"Graiideivmiui,"'p. 1J8.' 

PoBlh l8«8-7e. 88 (M) 8« |89) „ ,. p.4, 

Prae ISTBID. SO i»sj S2 (93) "Si:Bt<at.Hnn<9bnob,"ieSl,p.!l4. 

PruBsia, K 1M;-I3. 01197) 83(8B) From Bergtnann, p Bfl. 

Bowlit [870. 74(80) KS (87) " JoDrn. Slat, Soc" 1880. p. 313. 

et. Petersburg .. Ifies-7I. 83(78} Sti (87) KorOsl "GruidtSTllleB," p.17]. 

With the important exception of Rassia, therefore, a greater proportion 
ot Jewish marriages are between bachelors and spinsters than is the case with 
the rest of the population, fo some extent this is merely putting in another 
form the result at which we hai-e already arrived, that there is a greater 
proportion of early marriages among Jews. But another reason for the less 
proportion of marriages between widowers and spinsters, bachelors and widows, 
&c,, among Jews and Jewesses is undoubtedly their greater vitality which causes 
theproportionof Jewish widowers and widows to be leas. Thus in Pesth, 1870, 
no less than 66 per cent, of persona over 50 had husband or wife alive among 
Jews against 51 per cent, among Catholics and 53 among Protestants 
(^Statigt. Jakrh. 1873, p. 38) and in 1857 the percentage was as high as 69. 
I think it also probable that Jewish widows re~marry less often, being more 
competent to earn their own livelihood by carrying on the business left by 
their husbands. The exception formed by Russia may possibly receive some 
explanation from the facilities for divorce among Jews in that country. 

( Jonsangmneous Mariiaijeg — I have previously given reasons for believ- 
ing that English Jews marry their first cousins to the extent of 7*5 per cent. 
of all marriages as against a percentage of about S per cent, for England 
generally, as calculated by Prof. G. H, Darwin {Furt. Rev. July, 875). 
The only other detail on thia point that I have been able to find is given by 
W. Btieda Die Ehegekliesaungeu in EUaga-Lo'hnngen 1872-6 (Dorpat 
1878) who gives the proportion of consanguineous marriages among Jews 
as 23*02 per thousand against 1'86 for Protestants, and 9-97 for Catholics. 

Misced Marriages deserve notice on account oE their social importance 
as well as of certain biostatical phenomena which their progeny present. 
The following table summariaea the resultg given in the sources accessible 
to me, thenumbers represeating the percentage of such marriages as com- 
pared with those between Jews and Jewesses. The results do not include 
) where either side has become converted to Judaism beEote'a 


Plaoe. Epoch. Jews— Chriftiani. Chriftianfl— Jewessei. Aathorit?. 

Algeria ...... 1878. 0*94 0*94 **AiiiLBtet.7raiioe'*1881« p.S81. 

Bayaria 1876-80. 167 3*19 ** Zeit. Bay. 8Ut." 1881, p. SIS. 

Berlin 1881. 7*96 4*91 ^'Statiflt. Jahrb.*' ix.,p.8. 

Pes-h 1881. 0i>6 0-10 " Pest in 1881," p. 13. 

Prag 1878-80. 1*14 0*30 ** Btatiit. Handbach," 1881, p. S4. 

ProBSia 1876-79. 4*46 6*36 Tircks ** Z. PreoB. Ar«t.'* 1880, p. 16 . 

Vienna 1866-74. 3-60 8*06 Kor5«i ** Grandee TiUefl,*' p. 18. 

The numbers for Berlin and Pesth apply to the number of married 
persons, and not, as in the other cases, to the number of marriages in the 
year mentioned. In Pesth one has to take into consideration the condi- 
tions of the Hungarian legislation which does not permit such marriages. 
To evade a similar law which obtained in Austria till recent years, Jews 
desirous of marrying outside the pale of their religion used to write 
themselves down " Freethinkers." Of 100 such marriages in Vienna, 1877, 
no less than 25 were between Jews and Christians, and 15 between Chris- 
tians and Jewesses. {Ann. de Demog. iii. p. 128). It is curious that in 
Berlin where there are the greatest number of these marriages (64 to 889 
purely Jewish marriages in 1881, Veroffentl. d. Statis*-, Amis. p. 48) there 
should also be manifested the greatest intensity of anti-Semitic prejudice. 

Lastly as to Divorce the only details accessible relate to Bavaria where 
in the years 1862-75 Jewish divorces were only 5*1 per cent, of Jewish 
marriages against 6*1 Protestants, and 5*7 Catholics {Bertillon in AnndUi 
de Bemograi^Me, 1882, p. 290). 


FTequen4yy, — A.s with marriages so with births Jews seem to show at 
first sight a lower proportion than the general population of the lands in 
which they dwell. The following table, giving the birth-rate per thousand, 
shows this result in every case except Algeria, Hungary and Prague. 

Place. Bpooh. Jewt. Christians. Authority. 

Algeria 1844 46-8 36*8 LP9nyt,n.73. 

Algeria 1 878 63*7 82 8 *< A nn. Stat.' ' 1881, p. 680. 

Austria 1861-7 3b<6 88*6 Legoyt, p. 66. 

Austria 1861.70 38*0 3 '7 Rchlmmer, p. 6. 

Bucharent .... 1878 39*8 30*7 ^'Orasolui Bncaresci," 1878. 

France 1866-9 34*9 36*6 Legoyt, p. 68. 

Hungary 1874 46*9 39*7 liagneau, p. 31. 

Pesth 1873 37*9 43*8 «« Stat. Jahrb.," p. 66. 

Prague 1880 36*1 319 « Stat. Handb.," p. 26. 

Prussia 1834-73 84*7 40*4 <" Zeit. Preuss. ^tat.," Ib79, p. 38. 

Russia 1867 32*6 60*1 « MouvemenV* 

Russia 1868-70 33*0 496 Bergman, p. 

Tuscany 1861 37*3 39*0 Legoyt, p. 60. 

Westphalia.... 1834-73 30*1 36*7 Bergmann, p. 

The result is surprising when we consider that the increase of the Jewish 
population is almost everywhere greater than that of the general population 
and M. Loeb calls this the most striking fact in Jewish biostatics (Jui^Sy p. 
42). Yet it is capable of an easy explanation, I believe, from the same cause 
which renders the marriage-rate of Jews, though really greater when com- 
pared to the number of adults, appear less when calculated in relation to the 
whole population. The smaller number of deaths under 5 among Jews causes 
the non-nubile portion of the population to be greater among them than 
among Christians, and makes any percentage less when reckoned on the 
^hole population than it would be if reckoned upon the number of adults by 


a macli greater degree than is generallj the case. Thas to ttike the a 
Guda-Peath, I find from Korosi'a exhaustive work Die Haupetadt Bttda Pest 
iin Jahre 1881, that the percentage oE the Jewish popalation under 20 was 
45, while that of the Christian pojiulation was about 3i (p. 90) and it was 
approximately the same in 1871. Now supposing the same proportion to 
liold for 1873, the birth-rate instead of being 38 per thousand for Jews and 
43 for Christians reckoned on the whole population (see the Table), would 
be 69 for Jews and 65 lor Christiana reckoned on the adult population only, 
himilarly in Vienna, 1869, the Jewish population under 20 was 46 per cent, 
while the percentage of the general popnlatioa under the same age was 35 
(Jeitteles, p. 63). I think it probable, therefore, that the smaller marriage 
and birth-rate of Jews ia only apparent and would turn into a higher rate if 
applied only to adults. Thua we reach the curioas result that the greater 
birth-rate of Jews makes them appear to have a less rate when the " infants " 
nnder 2 1 are taken into the calculation. 

Fecunditij. — Births to a Murriaffe. — This result is confinned when we 
find that the average number ot children to a Jewish marriage is almost 
invariably greater than those who fall to the lot of Chriatiana. This number 
is ascertained by statisticians by dividing the number of the birtha in a year 
by that of the marriages. Applying this method to the various sources I 
have either calculated or extracted the items of the following table. By the 
procesa of division the difficulty as to adults is eliminated and the results 
become absolute : 

Place. KpnGh. Jetti. Oliriatlans. Antli-ritj'. 

PrDB>iB,]C lSU-7i 

lergmaD "Belcrago," 
VnVilirentl. Blai. Aii 


--.. 6-0 "MnuTomenteDlPOT." 

TdBCBDJ !8G1 3-9 i-l) Lrsovt, p. BD. 

Vf^nnu 18111-71 6i la KwM. l.c, pp.l8-aj. 

WuLtpbalia.... IB »-7e it 4-1 BsrgmanD.lbid. 

The extraordinary birth-rate for Austria (Schimmer, p 5, even gives 
lO'l) indicates some error in the entries, and is in all probability due to the 
fact tliat a rery large proportion of marriages are not entered on the civil 
registers From tlie table it will be seen that, with the exception of Prague, 
Russia and Tuscany, Jewish marriages are more fertile than others. Nor is 
it difficult to explain why this should be so. Prof. Tail has deduced from a 
large body of statistics collected by Dr. Matthews Duncan, the law thatthe 
number of childi'ea la proportioned to the aqnare of the number of years the 
wite'a age is under 50 (Duncan FeonTidity, ^c, 1866, p. 213), or in leaa 
technical language the younger the age at marriage the greater the num- 
ber of children. Now we have seen that Jewesses marry earlier than others 
and they would therefore have larger families.* A striking confirmation of 

• II i» probable that Jewiih marriages were not bo fertile in Talmudie timea owing 
lo the long period during wbicb lactation was alloned to oontinae. Thna in Che riddJi 
aiked in Kcha Robbai. 1, "Dine go oat, eight eume, Aa. " the ttreatr-fonr who eor 
rnontbi of guakling. Cf. too II. Hooc. ili. '.'8, " Sun I have boine thee nnder my 
OKHilha and given thee auck ttaree yaare. The anhjeot is discneacd hy Ruteli 
Die Gtbarlihilft dtr oftm Hebrfier, 1876, p. 49. 


this explanation is given by the case of Russia which forms an exception 
as regards both the earlier age of Jewish marriages and their greater fer- 
tility when compared with the general population. Another cause slightly 
affecting the higher fertility is probably the lower rate of still-births 
among Jewesses, since the above quotations refer to " viable " children 
and the less the number of still-births the greater, eo ipso, that of viable 
children. A further reason may possibly exist in the greater proportion of 
first-cousin marriages among Jews. I suspect that these are more fertile. 
In 45 cases of such marriages where I have been able to ascertain the number 
of children living I have found this reach the high average of 4*7 per 
family. In striking contrast to this is the remarkable infertility of mixed 
marriages. Von Fircks has given the results of investigations into 1,673 
such marriages in Prussia between 1875 and 1881, and finds that while the 
average number of children to a Protestant marriage is 4*3, to a Catholic 
6*2, to a Jewish marriage 4 4, marriages between Jews and Christians 
only produce on an average 1*7 (Zeit, Prevss. Stat, 1883, p. 239). ^imilarly 
in Bavaria, 1876-80, while Jewish marriages have a fertility of 4*7, mixed 
marriages have only 1 1 {Zeit, Bay. Stat, 1881, pp. 188, 213). Schwabe 
mentions that there were 182 families with only one parent Jewish in 
Berlin, 1871, and these had but 255 children* living, an average of 1*4 
{Eauptstadt, Berlin, 1871, p. 33), whereas in Vienna, 1869, the average 
number of children in a Jewish family was over 3*7 (Jeitteles, p. 53). It would 
be desirable to know at what age the latter class of marriage is usually entered 
upon as this might to some extent account for their infertility if the age of 
the brides was at all advanced. But it seems more probable that racial 
influences are at work and that such marriages would be abnormally 

Plural Births. — So far as the scanty materials go, there appear to be 
less twins among Jews than in the general population. Thus while in Russia 
1867, there were 2*5 per cent, of twins to all births, Jewish twins were only 
1*1 per cent. (Mouvt-ment de la population en Russia, p. 11), and only 25 
out of 100,000 would ** earn the Czar's bounty " for triplets against 35 of 
the general population. In Galicia between 1870-5 Jewish twins were 0*9 
per cent., < hris ian 1*2 per cent, of all births (^Statist, Monat. 1877, p. 178) 
while in Wieselburg (Hungary), 1833-55, there was one case of Jewish twins 
in 174 births, while among the Hungarians the proper ions were 1 in 102 
and among the Croats as many as 1 m 75 (Glatter Lebenschancen, p. l.>). 

^60;. — Jews are favoured with a remarkable predominance of boys in 
the results of their marriages. This fact was noticed by Burdach at the 
commencement of this century, by Hof acker in his Eigenschaften of 1838, 
and Darwin drew attention to it in his Descent of Man (2nd edit., p. 243). 
The facts adduced by the last great authority are somewhat antiquated, being 
derived mainly from the two former through the medium of Thury Loi de 
Production des Sexes, 1863. They may be widely supplemented as the 
following Table will show, which gives the proportion of boys born alive 

* Of 1C4 families where a Jew was the father, 49 children were being brought up as 
Jews, 106 as Christians ; of 78 where the mother was a Jewess, 40 were being brought up 
as Jews, 60 as Christians ; 32 ptr cent, in the former case, 40 in the latter, being educated 
as Jews. 

to 100 girla in the Tarioua plac 

Plioo. Bpocb. Jowe. ClirlBtlanB. Authority. 

Algeria 1678 103 1(H "Ann. Stat dp France, ISSl, p. 

Buda-Peath 1SBH-7S 114 lur KorOsr'Gnindea vUlea," p. S. 

Bnd^Peetb .... IStasi 103 1U4 "Statist. Uoiiat!i.,-'lHBt, p. IBS. 

~ , IBM'Sa m IDS Borgmann. p. IIB, 

. 1878-78 114 IM " SutlnL MonaU," vUl, ^ «8. 

, iai9-rs lOa IOB Borgmann, p. ho. 

^■gDG .'....'..'. 1879-80 lOt lilt " Etat. UandbaDlil,'' 1881, p. SS. 

IViuBta ..'.'.!.. lase-Bt log io6 ibid. 

~ " lfi7S-ai 108 108 "Zelt. H6UBB.8tIlt.,"I«SS,p.JSS, 

1RH-9S 118 109 Lagnean, p. li. 

_.__ 1887.70 1S» lOS "Jour. Stat SoO," 18B0, p, JS8, 

St Pelarabnrg-. 1863-73 117 loe KorOai If., p. 174. 

Viannii IBB6-74 117 IM Ibid, pp. Sl-S. 

The cauBBs of the predominauce of one sei or the other 
are practically nnknown, though all manner of suggestions have been 
made. The best known is that of Sadler and Ilofacker, whicli lays down 
the rule that bojs are peculiarly the results of early marriages. This is 
to some extent coniinned by Jewish statistics, but, the superiority of 
Jews in this respect is equally marked in Russia, where early marriages 
are hkewise the custom with the general population. It is eitablished 
that children horn in towns are more often boys than those in the country, 
and Jews live mostly in towns. Platter, who discusses the question in a 
paper on the " Hofacker-Sadler'sehe Ilypothese," in the Sfafisfische 
Monatachrift, 1875, deduces from the examination of no less than 30 
million births, the coDcliision that the less the difference of the ages of the 
parents the more the probability of boys : this is to say the least, not 
confirmed by tha results we have given for Buda-Pesth, where Jewish 
births are predominantly male, though the difference of age of parents is 
greater than among other creeds. .Another suggestion particularly apply- 
ing to Jews has been made by Lagtieau, that the greater number of hoys 
is due to the ohservance of the laws of Nidda (Lev, xv, 19). E. JS^agel, 
who baa a special paper on the subject (Die hohe Knaheimherschuss der 
Neugeborenen der Jiidinnen in Stat. Monats., 1884, pp. 183-6), attributes 
the peculiarity (1), to the greater care which Jewish wives take of their 
health ; (3), to the less number of illegitimate births. Both these facts 
hare infiaence on the sex of viable children by lessening the number of 
Btill-bom children, parturition being more difficult in the case of males. 
Thus the less the cumber of mala children Btili-born, the more of them 
are viable. 

Before, however, testing this explanation by an examiuation of the 
most favourable pheuomenou of Jewish births — the low rates of illegitimate 
and stiU-bortt children — it is worth while inquiring how far the above 
figures for the asx of Jewish births are trustworthy. The eomplelely 
abnormal figures for Austria, Russia and St. Petersburg when compared 
with those for Posen and Prussia render it likely that some uniform error 
occurs in the registration of Jewish female children in East Europe. And 
Lagneau suggests that less care is taken with the registration of females 
among poor Jews. We must therefore allow a large discount for this 
soarue of vitiation for our results before asserting that Jewesses bear more 
boys. The fact already cited of the greater number of Jewesses confirms 
this attitude of scepticism. Altogether it is probable that the superiority 
is hot alight, though its uniformity readers its existoaae^ \ui^'^'w&. 


Illegitimacy, — Jews can boast of a considerablj lower rate of illegi- 
timate births than almost anj other sect or nation. The strong ties of 
family, the greater supervision of public opinion, the less frequency with 
which Jewesses go out to service, are doubtless among the causes of 
this gratifying fact. Oettinger, who writes with an anti-Semitic bias, 
says that Jews are no more favoured in this respect than all other 
Nonconformists, and he quotes figures for Prussia, 1862-4, showing that 
Jews had 3'6 per cent, of their births illegitimate, while Dissenters bad 
the slightly more favourable figure 3'2. {Moral Stalistiky p. 325). But 
this explanation will not meet such an array of facts as is formed by the 
following table, giving the percentage of illegitimate to all births, at the 
place and time named. 

Place. Epoch. Jews. Christians. Authority. 

Austria 1861-70 12*7 14*7 Schimmer, p. 6. 

Baden 1857-73 16 14-3 Bergmann. 

Bavaria 1876 1*0 18-0 Ibid, p. 131. 

France 1887-9 3*5 7*5 Lagneau, p. 23. 

Hungary 1866-73 1*3 6'5 Schwlcker, p. 187. 

Moscow 1-68-72 0^ 89-9 Korttsl *'Grand villea,*' p. 181. 

Pesth 1868-75 6-7 29-9 Ibid, p. 5. 

Pesth 1878-82 10-7 23-9 " Statist. Monat.," 1884, p. 28«. 

Posen 1819-73 2*7 5*9 Bergmann, p. 1 21. 

Prague 1865-74 6*6 43*9 Korjisi, I.e., p. 36. 

Prussia 1822-40 1*8 7*0 ** Jour. Stat. Soc." ix., p. 81. 

Prussia 1876-80 2*7 7*6 " Zeit. Preuss. Stat," 1 881, p. 32». 

Riga 1866-70 0*1 1*1 ** Russ. Revue." v., p. 427. 

Russia 1867 . 0*3 3*3 Lagneau, p, 23. 

Russia 1868-70 0*2 2*9 " Jour. Stat. Soc.," 1880, p. 357. 

St. Petersburg.. 1866-72 0*1 30*0 Kordsi, I.e., p. 174. 

Turin 1865 0*0 13*2 Kor58l, I.e., p. 102. 

Verona 1855-64 1*0 20*0 Lagneau, ibid. 

Vienna 1866-74 8*7 44*9 KorOsl, I.e. pp. 21-2. 

The very high figure for Austria is almost without doubt due to the 
practice of omitting civil registration of marriage among the lower orders 
of Jews, thus causing the offspring to be reckoned as illegitimate. It is 
right to add that Schimmer, whose attention had been drawn to this fact, 
still contends that his numbers are correct, and gives further details {Stat. 
Monats,, 1876, pp. 161-3.) But these only prove too much. At Storozynee 
€,g. the percentage of Jewish illegitimate children is put at the absurd 
number of 99'61, which simply means that Jews there never register their 
marriages. It is worthy of attention that the favourable proportions are 
gradually becoming less advantageous to Jews where their isolation is 
being modified. In almost every case where the figures for a number of 
are given, a perceptible rise in the rate of illegitimacy may be discovered. 
Bergmann shows this to be the case with most eastern districts of Prussia, 
and where a diminution of the illegitimacy rate has occurred, as in 
Westphalia, it has been less than in the general population {Beitrage^ pp. 
129-30.) In reckoning the advantages of "civilization" for Jews one has 
seemingly to expect a rise in this unpleasant index. A further point to 
be noticed is that the rate varies with that of the general population ; 
that for Pesth and Vienna are only relatively favourable. 

On the other hand, the few facts available scarcely carry out Nagel's 
suggestion that the low rate of illegitimacy (where male births are rarer), 
causes the male sex to predominate more decisively among Jewish births 
in general. For the same predomination is for the most part seen in 
'Uegitimate births. This may be gathered from the following table giving 


number of viable boys to 100 girls in illegitimate births, the authorities 
being the same as before : — 

Pesth. Prague. Prussia. Ylenaa. 

JewB 106 114 101 110 

Christians 104 104 103 104 

The point may not seem one worthy of being elaborately discussed, 
but it is one of the few biostatical phenomena which seem to be dis- 
tinctively racial. 

Still-Births. — It is usually asserted that Jews are favoured with a 
lower rate of still-births, and we should expect this considering their lower 
infant mortality in general. The evidence I can adduce is about evenly 
balanced, though the long experience and general trustworthiness of the 
Prussian statistics serve to confirm strongly the general impression. The 
following table gives the percentage of still-born to viable children 2 — 

Place. Epoch. Jews. Christians. Authority. 

Baden 1857-70 4-0 31 Bergmann, p. 178 

Berlin 1880 3-1 3-9 " Statist. Jahrb.," 1891, p. 28. 

France 1855-9 5-2 4*3 Lagneau, p, 36. 

Hungary 1876-8 1-3 1-6 " Stat. Monats.," 1884, p. 184. 

Pesth 1876-8 6-6 7-3 Ibid. 

Posen 1819-49 2*9 2*4 Bergmann, p. 191. 

Posen 1849-73 M 3.3 Ibid. 

Prague 1865-74 5-0 4*4 Eorosi, " Grandes yilles," p. 36. 

Prussia 1820-76 2-1 37 " Zelt. Preuss. Stat.," 1877, p. 40. 

Prussia 1875-81 8-4 4-1 Ibid, 1883, p. 232. 

St. Petersburg 1866-72 6-4 3*4 KorOsi, l.c., p. 176. 

Vienna 1865-74 5-1 4-6 Ibid, p. 23. 

Among the reasons alleged to account for the difference may be men- 
tioned the Christian custom of baptism immediately after birth, which is said 
to affect children prejudically, the more favourable age at which Jewesses 
marry, and generally the greater care taken of themselves by the latter. 
It is scarcely worth while discussing these points as the facts of superiority 
is not so thoroughly made out as one could wish. As regards NagePs 
contention that the less number of still-births is a cause of a greater 
number of Jewish boys born, I may observe that in Buda-Pesth, 1876-8, 
the proportion of boys in still-births was 122 among Jews, 116 among 
Christians, while the figures for St. Petersburg would seem to indicate as 
many as 185 for the former against 126 for the latter. 





A Paper read before the Anthropological Institute, 

February 24th, 1885. 


In the following research I have endeavoured to bring together 
all the data, scientific or historical, which bear upon the question 
of the purity of the Jewish race. I have found it necessary for 
this purpose to scrutinise somewhat closely many Jewish quali- 
ties and habits that have hitherto been regarded as peculiarly 
the results of race. Most of these, however, have been found to 
be due to social causes, and cannot therefore be regarded as 
primarily racial. Nevertheless I trust even the discussion of 
the secondaiily racial qualities of Jews with which this paper 
opens may not be without interest to students of anthropology. 
They exhibit, I conceive, a striking example of the influence 
which the social life of man has upon his physical qualities. 
For a decision on the main question, I have been forced to turn 



to history, which is on this occasion more than usually Janus- 

We have first of all to determine which are the Jews whose 
racial qualities we are to determine. I have made the following 
estimate, necessarily rough, of the various classes of persons now 
living, who may claim to be Jews by religion or by birth, or by 


A. Jems both hy religion 

and hy birth , 

Aslikenazim . . 
Sephardim •• 

B. Jews hy religion^ hut 

not hy hirth 


Karaites . . • • 
Daggatouns, &c.^ 
Beiii-Israel^ . . 

O. Jews hy hirth, hut not 
hy religion , , 

Chuetas or Anussim^ 
Maiminen^ . . . • 

G'did al Islam^ 


Teutonia and Slavonia 
Bomance, Leyant, Africa 
Nablus •• •• • 

Crimea •• 
Sahara .. 
Bombay . « 
Cochin .. 

Balearic Is. 













Per cent, of 


6 1 



Besides these, there exist a large number of persons, mostly 
in Europe, who have Jewish blood in their veins as descendants 
of Jewish converts. This is specially the case in Spain, where 
Jewish blood has filtrated through all ranks of society up to 
the very highest, and the same is said of certain districts of 

^ The best enumeration of Jews is by M. I. Loeb, art. " Juifs," in Saint Martin's 
Dictionnaire de Geographie : his chief errors are making the number of Russian 
Jews too low by a miUion, and the Falashas 200,000 instead of 50,000. 

2 Rohlf s in Petermann " MittheU," 1883, p. 213. 

' Serour, ** Les Daggatouns," 1880. I include in this number the Mavambu or 
Negro- Jews of the Loango Coast {vide Andree, " Volkskunde d. Juden," 1881, 
p. 90). 

* Census of India, 1881, gives 7,952 Jews in British Bombay. 

^ " Jiid. Littblt," 1883, No. 36. The number of Jews in China is unknown. 

• Descendants of Spanish Jews still isolated. Lewin, ibid., No. 30. 

7 Descendants of followers of the Jewish " Mahdi," Sabbathai Zebi. G-raetz 
in " Monatsft," 1884, Feb. 

^ Jews forcibly converted to Islam thirty years ago, " VesLUo Israel," April, 

mid France. The anthropology of Jews cjin never be satisfac- 
torily settled till careful examination of these various data haa 
shown their resemblances and diflerencea. From the common 
qualities of classes A and S we can determine qualities due to 
religion ; from those common to A and C, but differing in B, 
we might draw valuable conclusions as to iafluences of race. 
As a matter of fact, for the second and third classes we have 
practically no data to work with, except the vague impressions 
of travellers, and we must therefore confine our attention to the 
two chief divisions of Jews : (1) Sephardim, mostly descendants 
of the refugees from Spain in 1492, and now residing on the 
littoral of the Mediterranean,^ and (2) Ashkenazira, dwelling in 
all the countries inhabited by Teutons or Slavs. The latter form 
an overwhelming majority (93 per cent.), and our information 
about them is tolerably extensive and reliable. 

What aie the qualities, if any, that we are to regard as racially 
characteristic of Jews 1 Much vague declamation has been 
spoken and written on this subject. All the moral, social, and 
intellectual quahties of Jews have been spoken of as being 
theirs by right of birth in its physical sense: Jews differ from 
others in all these points, it is true, as I have partly shown 
elsewhere,' But the differences are due, in my opinion, to the 
combined effect of their social isolation and of their own tradi- 
tions and customs, and if they have nowadays any hereditary 
predisposition towards certain habits and caUiugs, these can 
only be regarded as secondarily racial, acquired hereditary 
tendencies which cannot be brought forward as proof of racial 
purity. If all the Johns and Maries of Europe were to be shut 
up in ghetti for a couple of centuries they would tmdoubtedJy 
show peculiarities in habits and thought ; they would develop 
a Johannine psychology, as it were, and most probably, as we 
shall see, a Johannine biostaties. And there is another reason 
why the psychological traits of Jews must be omitted for the 
present from any research which claims to be scientific. Science 
was to Condillac a hundred years ago only a well-conatructed 
terminology (utw langage lien/aite); nowadays science is meaaure- 
ment accurately calculated. Now though I hope to show on 
some future occasion that the intellectual capacity of Jews, if 
not absolutely, is yet relatively mea.'^urable as compared with 
that of other Europeans, I should still hesitate to qualify these 
distinctions as racial in a strict sense. Tliey seem more a 
matter of temperament, which is at best but the tone of race, 
and is much more modifiable by education and environment than 

' I have rocloned in with the S^pltardim the Itnlian Sent and those undi^r 
Moilfm rule. 

* Videmj " Studies in Jewish Statistics" (Jeiciii ChrtmicU ^'Sm'^ . 


purely racial characteristics, so that it may happen that widely 
diverse races, e.g., Jews and Frenchmen, may have much the 
same temperament. Under any circumstances it would be 
difficult for a Jew to avoid subjective bias in dealing with these 
matters, and where that bias leads to any assertion of superiority 
the result is as unsatisfactory from the point of view of science 
as it is from that of taste. It remains then to consider those 
qualities of Jews which depend on physical properties, and these 
have the further advantage of lending themselves to accurate 
measurement. These are (1) the vital statistics of Jews-=-mar- 
riages, births, deaths, diseases — and (2) their anthropometry or 
bodily measurements. 

I. Vital Statistics, 

As I have already given in my "Studies in Jewish Statistics" 
the results of my search among statistical publications on Jewish 
biostatics, I will here content myself with giving a summary of the 
conclusions at which I have arrived. These are as follows : — * 

1st. Jews have a less marriage rate, less birth rate, and less 
death rate than their neighbours, but the less marriage and birth 
rate are due in large measure to the less mortality of Jewish 
children. The larger number of children living causes the 
percentages of marriages and births, reaUy larger as regards 
adults, to seem smaller when reckoned on the whole population. 

2nd. Jews and Jewesses marry earlier than the surrounding 
populations. Cousins intermarry more frequently, perhaps three 
times as often. 

3rd. Jews have larger families, though fewer plural births. 
On the other hand, mixed marriages between Jews and persons 
of other race are comparatively infertile. 

4th. In Jewish confinements there are more boys, less still- 
births, and fewer illegitimate births, though the advantage as to ' 
still-births disappears among Jewish illegitimate children. 

5th. Jews have a smaller mortality of children under five, 
but this does not hold of Jewish illegitimate children, who die 
off at much the same high rate as the unfortunate beings of the 
same class in other sects. Jewish deaths over sixty are generally 
greater in proportion. Jews commit suicide less frequently. 

6th. It has been frequently asserted that Jews enjoy an 
immunity from certain diseases, notably phthisis and cholera, 
but the evidence I have on this point is adverse to the claim. 
There is some indication that they are more liable to diabetes 
and haemorrhoids, and they have certainly more insane, deaf- 
mutes, blind, and colour-blind persons. 

» Vide my "Studies," No. VII, pp. 49 ei seq. 

th. I would add two social facta of great importance iail 
feir bearing on vitality : (a) the vaat majority of Jews live in 1 
^ratiea ; (5) Jewa liave a lai^er proportion of poor than the people$9 
among whom they dwell (" Studies," II and IV). 

This long list of divergences between Jewish and general! 
statiatics might seem at first sight to imply atrongly marked! 
racial differences. But when closely examined, almost aU of* 
them are seen to turn on social characteristics. Thus the fr&- J 
queney of conaanguineous marriagea and the smaller proportion " 
of illegitimate births and of auieides are clearly due to social 
causes. The same may be said of the earlier age at wMch 
Jewiah marriages occur,^ and from this follow their greater 
fertility, and probably the larger proportion of male birtha. 
Again, if less stUl-hirtha and lesa mortality imder five among ■ 
their offapring were physical characteristics of all Jeweaaes, we I 
should find them to some extent at least among illegitimate I 
Jewish birt.hs and children.^ But as a matter of fact the | 
superiority is confined to legitimacy, and must therefore 
attributed for the most part to social causes, the greater care I 
taken of Jewish children, and of Jewiah mothers. Thus v 
left with only four bioatatical points which cannot be primA 1 
/acie resolved into social phenomena, and may therefore 
referred to infiuences of race. These are — (1) the less number " 
of twins and triplets ; (2) the infertility of mixed marriages ; 
(3) the greater longevity of Jews ; (4) their alleged special 
morbidity or liability to disease. The paucity of plural births 
we may diamiaa, as nothing is known of the cause of these. 

Infertility of mixed mai-riages deserves more attention, owing J 
to ite important bearings on the main question of this paper. * 
As I may claim to have first dra^^vn attention to the subject, I 
will here repeat the evidence on which I found it. In Prussia 
these marriages have been separately registered since 1875, and 
between that year and 1881 there were 1,676 such marriages, 
resulting in 2,765, an average of 1"65 to a marriage, whereas 
during the same period pure Jewiah marriages resulted in an 
average of 4'41 children, or very nearly three times as many 
(" Zeit. Preusa. Stat.," 1882, p. 239). In Bavaria, between 1876, 
and 1880, 67 mixed marriages were registered, the resul*' 
offspring being only 76, or only l^i per marriage, ape" 
children to purely Jewish marriages (" Zeit, Bay. ^ 
pp. 188, 213). This conapicuoua infertility nlao 

' The curlier age oP puberty may influeae" • 
iBipoW4inuo of sociiil and r«lieious pi ' ' 

' F. J. NeuinHi 


steriKty. Among 56 such marriages where I cotild ascertain the 
results, no less than 9 were sterile (18 per cent.), a striking 
.contrast to the number of sterile marriages which I found in 
71 marriages betwecD Jewish cousins, where the percentage of 
sterility was only 5'4 per. cent. (c/. " Studies," p. 7). At the 
same time I must add that I found no other ill results. Of 85 
families, only 2 were afllicted, about the same number as would 
be found among Jews in general, whereas 84 first cousin mar- 
riages included no less than 13 in which there were deaf-mutes 
or lunatics. The uniform infertility of mixed marriages can 
scarcely be due to any uniformity in the ages of the contracting 
parties, the chief determining factor of fertility, so that we may 
take it as a racial phenomenon, or, to make a rather fine distinc- 
tion, as a phenomenon indicating racial differences. 

The longevity and vitality of Jews are by no means so 
universally superior as has been thought ; the superiority dis- 
appears in large measure among Jewish populations which, like 
those of Galicia and Eussia, have a large proportion of day 
labourers.^ So far as it is founded on the low death rate, it 
can be attributed rather to the greater care taken of children 
under five, which after all means that more weakly individuals 
are kept alive to carry on an unequal struggle for existence. It 
certainly would appear extraordinary if Jews enjoyed exceptional 
vitality, considering the insanitary conditions of their lives in 
the past, and their weakly constitution in the present. I have 
been able to obtain some details of the way in which they used 
to be overcrowded in the ghetti — 







Frankfort .. 





Ficker's *'Bevolk.B6hmen,*' 

p. 55. 
Times, Aug. 8, 1884. 

Ficker, ihid. 

And Tchubinsky reports that in 1840 the Jews of Southern Bussia 
used to dwell thirteen in a house, whereas the general population , 
had only from four to five (" Globus," 1880, p. 340). So, too, 
the military statistics show an extraordinary number of indi- 
viduals who are unsuitable for military service owing to their 
weakly constitution {cf, Goldstein's paper in " Eevue d'Anthro- 
pologie," July, 1884). And where any superiority in vitality is 

1 Cy. Bergmann, "Beitrage," 1883, pp. 145-6. 

sliown, this again may be traced to moral and social causes. Jews 
do not lead "dangerous" lives in the insurance sense (sailors, 
soldiers, firemen, miuers, &c.). The trades which they do 
exercise, except that of tailoring, seem more long - lived,^ 
Further, the Jewish nature does not seem to require stimulants, 
and Jews are markedly free from alcohoham. The tranquilising 
effects of Jewish family life, the joyous tone and complete rest 
of the Sahhath and other festivals, the unworrying character of 1 
the Jewish religion, are all important in the difficult art of ' 
keeping alive. The greater care taken of Jewish women, who 
more rarely take to manual labour, aids also in producing good 
results in the tables of mortality. I attribute much importance, 
too, to the strict regulation of the connubial relations current 
among Jews.* 

I am imable to attribute much beneficial influences to the ] 
Jewish dietary laws, though the matter requires careful and ' 
unbiassed examination. These may be divided into four 
divisions, developed in chronological sequence — (1) the Biblical 
distinction of clean and unclean (Lev. xi) ; (2) the Talmudic 
method of cutting the animal's throat {Shechita) for the purpose 
of removing the blood ; (3) Bedika, or examination of the chief . 
organs to see if there are any lesions, developed after Talmudio J 
times ; (4) MelkJui, or putting the flesh into salt and water to I 
remove the blood ; the origin of this is uncertain, nor is it | 
clearly mentioned in the Talmud. It may have some connec- 
tion with the practice of using salt with sacrifices (Lev. ii, 13). I 
(1) The diet prescribed by the Bible, as by all Oriental legisla- 
tion (Manu, Zoroaster), was doubtless due to a rough induction 
from popular experience. Apart from a few anomahes,* it 
eoincides in the main with the dietary of all civilised peoples 
with whom the ruminants, being the chief domestic animals, 

' The indefatigable E^orOai has given from Scliimmer statietics shawine thai ' 
while 37 per cont. ofCatholics (ovHr 14 in Buda Peatb) followed certain treduB at 
liigh mortality, and Protestants about 33 per licnt., Jews had otil; 22 per cent, in 
these induBtnes ("Post in 1870," p. 45). 

' Query; may this custom of separation (Lev. n, 19) have any connection 
witli Jewish proliiaency in mueie, which in ita origin seems to be abo regulated 
sexual emotion? (c/l Darwin, " Descent," p. 573, and Gurnoy, " Power o£ Sound," 
chap. Ti, pp. 110-121). 

' It is possible that some of these anomalies iiia.y be eiplained as BurriTolB of 
totem worship derived by the uncient Hebrews from the Canaanitee, or existing 
among tbomselvos. Even in Eiekiel'* cima tbo Jews worshipped " every form 
of creeping thing and abominable beasts" (Ezek. viii, 10), and it has been 
contended that they worsliipped totems, and no member of a totem p2an will eat 
the totem animal. When, therefore, we find Jaazaniafa ben Shaphan (i.<*., eon 
of the Coney or Eock-baiiger) in the same passage (verse 11) offioiating as higll 
uriert at these totem-rites, totemism is given as the reason why the coney wa» a 
included among the Lnboo'd food of the Israalites (Lev. li. 5). On tho who] ^ 
subject cf. Prof. Robertson Smith, "Journal of Piiilology," 1380. j H 


form the staple diet. The chief exception is, as is well known, 
the use of pork. This has been found to be injurious in hot 
climates, but in northern latitudes the chief danger has been 
found to be from trichinosis. So far as this affects vitality, 
Jews are undoubtedly free from this source of danger, but it 
scarcely seems to be prevalent enough to affect the death rate. 
(2) Sliechita seems to have been originally confined to animals 
intended for sacrifice on the principle that " the blood is the life," 
and that this must be entirely spilt. It was afterwards extended 
to secular food, and it is nowadays contended that the removal 
of the blood is a safeguard against waste-products contained in it. 
Whatever advantages this gives must also be enjoyed by Moham- 
medans, who have borrowed it, as well as the Biblical distinction 
between clean and unclean, from the Jews. As a matter of fact, 
it does not remove all the blood, since Jewish practice requires 
a further process, insertion in salt and water (Melicha), to ensure 
this. (3) The Bedika, or examination of the internal organs, 
seems based on a correct principle,^ but it has never been ascer- 
tained how far this is carried out in practice ; it certainly does 
not ensure immunity from tubercle, as we shall shortly see. (4) 
About this it is sufficient to say that it does not effect its purpose. 
The originators of these practices, I may add, did not claim any 
medical validity for them, carefully distinguishing cases where 
food should not be eaten for medical, as opposed to religious, 
reasons. Some Jewish writers have even declared the flesh of 
the swine to be highly nutritious (c/. Kalisch on " Leviticus,'* 
11, p. 82). 

These practices certainly do not secure immunity from any 
special diseases, as has been claimed for them in recent years, 
especially as regards cholera and phthisis. We now know that 
the Jews fell victims to the Black Death as much as their 
neighbours (Hoeniger, "Der Schwarze Tod in Deutschland," 
1881). As regards cholera, the only favourable result I can 
find is a strong tradition that Jews suffered less from it when 
it visited England in 1834, and last year at Marseilles their 
death rate from it was only 2 per 1,000, against 5 of the general 
population (" Vessillo Israel." September, 1884). On the other 
hand, I find in 1873 the mortality from cholera in Hungary 
greatest where there were most Jews, e.g., 63 per 1,000 in 
Drohobycz, where half the inhabitants are Jews ("Statist." 
Monatsft," 1875, p. 136). In Smyrna, 1848, mortality from 
this pest carried off 1 in 26 among Jews, 1 in 40 among Moham- 

* It is scarcely likely, however, that the Eabbins were in any sense anticipators 
of Koch and Pasteur, for they considered the function of the lungs to be to absorb 
the liquids of the body. See Talm. Bab., Beracoth 60 a, a passage which shows 
^hem to be by no means in advance of Hippocrates and Galen. 

medans, -jij Greeks, -^ Catholics, ^-^ Armenians (Burgui^re's 
" Etudes anr la Cholera k Smyrne," Paris, 1849, in A. Hirsch 
"Hist.-Geog. Pathologie," lat edit, I, 129); and Eonnafort 
noticed the same for Algiers (ibid.), and Lombroso for Veiona 
(Legoyt, " Immunity," p. 65). The alleged immunity from 
tubercular disease disappears in the same way on reference to 
definite results.' In Verona, 1855-64, Lombroso found among 
272 Jewish deaths 6 per cent, from phthisis, against 7 per cent, 
among Catholics, and in an Hungarian district Clatter found 
this disease {Lwigentubereulose) causing 14'4 per cent, of 473 
Jewish deaths, against 16'9 Magyars, 16'4 Slovaks, and 19'5 
Servians, but against only 13-5 of German deaths,^ (Casper 
" Vierteljahrschft," XXV, p. 48), These are the only favourable 
atatiatitis, and by no means exceptionally so. Here in London, 
of 1,215 deaths attended by the medical officer of the Jewish 
Board of Guardians 1862-71, I have found that no leas than 
159 were due to tubercular disease, 13"1, against ll'S for the 
Whitechapel district for the same period (Registrar- General's 
Report, XXXV, Suppt., p. 37). I find phthisis especiaDy 
prevalent among Jews in Egypt according to Pnmer, in Algeria 
according to Haspe], Bertheraud, and Pietra Saota (Hirach, LI, 
95), and in South Russia according to Tchubinsky (" Globus," 
1880, p. 377). Strong confirmatory evidence of the last state- 
ment may be seen in the fact that among the Russo-Jewish 
recruits of 1S77-8 no less than 4 per cent, were dismissed for 
phthisis (a disease that cannot be "malingered"), against only 
1'3 of the Polish recruits (Goldstein in "Revue d'Anthrop.," 
1884, p. 470). We cannot therefore, in the face of these facts, 
claim any immunity from phthisis for Jews. No claim haa been 
made for freedom from zymotic diseases ; such immunity would 
be but a doubtful boon, as it would only leave freer field for 
the demon Bacillus to batten on, and the same might be said of 
the alleged immunity from phthisis. Syphilis seems to be less 
prevalent among Jews ; * but this may be due to moral causes, 

■ On this gee Dr. E. Behrcnd, " The Commanicnbility of Disoaees of AniinalB 
to Man" (Jeu-'i'«4 CironWe Office). UnfortunBtelj, Dr. Bahrend liagumlertiikea 
to that! wh; tiae pnu^tioe of Bedika should produce immui^ity from plithuis 
before aacerraiiiing whether Ihe iinomnilj eiist*. And certainly be provEH too 
much in the pamphlet referred to when he points out tbat 80 per cent, of 
animals slaughtered are infected with tuberouloua diaeaee. For only aboot 
42 per eent. arc rejected \iy the Jewish butchers, uiony of them merely for faults 
in the mode of elaughter. 

^ On the other hand, Jews had 47 of deaths from tub^rcolar cerehral inflam- 
mation, against i'Z Serbs and Sloraka, 3*6 Magyars, and 1 ' 5 Oermana. 

' Dr. A, Cohen, late Senior Eooi^e burgeon uf the Motropolit<in Free Iloapital, 
has kindly giieo me the following details of tlio ri^ereal cauw coming under his 
iiotii-e during hospital pructioa in 18H2-3. Tlie numbers are thoae of all the 
Teuereal cases ; the percentages in the first two rubrics, those of syphilitic uuwb ; 

and in so far as it is the result of circumcision* it is clearly not 
racial. The smaller proportion of congenital cases follows from 
this, and is thus only secondarily racial 

But if we cannot claim for Jews any racial immunity from 
special disease, neither can it be asserted that they are liable as 
a race to any, such as haemorrhoids and diabetes. So far as these 
are prevalent among Jews they are due to sedentary habits. 
Even the most widely spread of Jewish diseases, insanity, 
blindness, and deafmutism, can be traced in part to their life 
in towns, their mental activity, and exciting occupations. With 
regard to deafmutism, I am inclined to lay some weight on an 
explanation which is nowadays thought to be exploded, viz., 
the influence of consanguineous marriages {cf. " Studies," p. 8, 
and supra, p. vi). Thus on examining some 28 families of 
children at the Jews' Deaf and Dumb Home, Walmer Eoad, I 
find that families where the parents are unconnected have 1*2 
mutes per family, those where the parents are second cousins 
1*5, and where the parents are first cousins there is an average 
of 3 mutes per family. The numbers are too small to enable 
us to draw definite results, but they suggest the need of further 
inquiry into this point. 

Thus throughout our review of Jewish biostatics we have 
failed to find any phenomenon which was uniformly present in 
all Jews that could not be referred to social causes. No doubt 
there is reciprocal influence between nurture and nature, and the 
Jewish organism may show some traces of the beneficial 
influence of Jewish training, as it certainly shows traces of the 

the complementaiy ones would give those of gonorrhoea. The percentages relating 
to children are those of congenital syphilis observed in the number of chUdren 







Per cent. 


Per cent. 


Per cent. 

Jews .. .. .. 

Others ,. .. .. 






The number of Jewesses affected altogether was too small to afford trust- 
worthy result*. The proportion of Christian to Jewish patients was about three 
to one, the hospital bemg in the centre of the Jewish quarter of London. 

^ No investigation of the effects of this very widely spread custom (cf. Andree, 
** Arch, f . Anthr.," xiii, pp. 53-78 ; Ploss, ** Das Kind," I, pp. 342-372) on 
venereal diseases has been made. It certainly does not produce immunity 
from gonorrhoea, which is mentioned both by Bible (Lev. xv, 2) and Talmud 
''Bergel, "Medizin desTalmuds," p. 1 40). On the possibility of an Egyptian 

'gin of circumcision see Welcker in " Archiv. f . Anthrop.," x, p. 123. The 

illus examined was of the fifteenth century b.o. 

■effects of the environment in the bodily meftsurements to 
we shall soon turn. But these inflnences are, in the first 
instance, social, not racial, and camiot therefore be adduced to 
show common origin. If we may restrict the word "Jewish" to 
properties due to the origin of tfews, and " Judaic " to whatever 
is due to their religion or customs, we may say that their 
biostatics is Judaic, not Jewish, To revert to our original 
illnstration, if the Johns and Maries whom we imagined cooped 
up in ghetti had married as early, treated their children as 
tenderly, if the Johns had nurtured the Maries as well, if they 
had had the same pleasing family life and care of poor by rich, 
as Jews, they would have developed a Johannine biostatics 
lately resembling the Jewish. But these Johannine qualities 
would not he due to common origin, and would therefore he 
what I have termed " secondarily racial," and so it may be with 
Jewish qualities. So far as Jews enjoy certain vital advantc^es 
over their neighbours these depend on the simple antiq^ue virtues 
and customs of the Jews and Jewesses of past and present. 
These advantages will persist as long as the virtues remain, 
and disappear, as in some respects they are disappearing,^ when 
the bonds of rehgion and tradition are relaxed 

We turn then in our search for purely racial characteristics 
of Jews to the measurements of their outward cLualities, to their 

II. — A nthrop&m dry. 

It might seem impossible that we should be disturbed here 
having to consider any social factors. Yet, as regards two 
important sections of antlu-opometry — height and girth — social 
considerations have great weight, and, indeed, it would not be 
impossible to show their influence on colour-blindness, on the 
shape of the sktill, which alters with increased mental activity, 
and perhaps even on the colour of the hair and eyes, which are 
not, in the long run, independent of quality and quantity of 
nutrition. Eiit, on the whole, we may neglect these disturbing 
causes and take the following measurements as distinctive of the 
Jewish race at the present day, leaving for later coasideration 
the question how far they indicate purity of race, 

Hei/jht and Girth. — Jews are nowadays tJie shortest and 
narrowest of Europeans (excepting, perhaps, Magyars as regards 
the former), as the following sets of measurements will show : — 

' Tile rate of illegitimacy' and of auioides baa been rising 'vrhile tJie deatli rate* 
in riaiijg relatiielj to the Burrounding populatione, and Uih exoen of male births 
u fnUiug. 









Poland .. 


a • 


Snigerew, " Revue d'An- 
throp.," 1884, p. 470. 


fp •• 


• • 

• • 

XJte, in Andree, " Volks- 
kunde," p. 32. 


Ghilicia .. 


• • 


Majer and Kopemicki, ** Cha- 
rak, Fizyck, Gkdic," pp. 37 
and 59. 




• . 

• • 

Scheiber, "Arch. f. Anthrop.," 

• • • 




• • 





Bussia .. 




Blechmann, " Anthropologie." 


Varions . . 


• • 


Weisbach, " ILorpermess.*' 


Bussia .. 



• • 

Schulz, from Blechmann. 

In the British Association Eeport for 1883 there is a list of 
heights of eighty-five different races, among which English Jews 
come thirteenth with 169*2 cm., and Polish Jews, according to 
Majer and Kopemicki, as low down as seventieth. Again, in 
a list of 122 racial heights by Weisbach (" Novara Expedition," 
pp. 216-217), Jews come seventy-sixth with Schulz*s measure- 
ment, and would be much lower down with 162*1 cm., the mean 
of the above 12,922 measurements. 

I may mention that the Jews measured for the British 
Association were of the higher social grades, and their superiority 
over the other Jews is undoubtedly the result of better i/urture. 
The smaller height of Jews may thus be partly due to their 
residence in cities (" Brit. Assoc. Eeport," 1883, p. 284) ; tailors 
are also the smallest of men, and a much larger proportion 
of Jews are tailors. Goldstein has determined from Snigerew's 
measurements that Eussian Jews have a smaller chest-girth, 
both absolutely and relatively, than other Eussians, and he 
therefore credits them with a less " index of vitality." (" Eevue 
d'Anthropologie," 1884, p. 481.) Other bodily measurements 
have been too sporadic for record, being limited to 19 examined 
by Weisbach, 20 by Schulz, and 100 by Blechmann. 

Craniometry, — The few results reached in this branch of 
anthropometry seem to show that Jews are predominantly 
brachycephalic, and are not physically long-headed. Only thirty- 
four skull measurements are given by Stieda (" Arch. f. Anthrop.," 
xiv, 68) from Pruner-Bey, Welcker, Davis, Weisbach, and 
Dusseau: these give an average index of 77*3. To these I 
would add fifteen given by Lenhoss^k (**' Cranioscopia," p. 167), 
with an index of 80*5, and five of Italian Jews, which I calculate 

^ From the measurements made for the British Association by Dr. M. Dayis, 
who kindly lent me the results. 

from Legoyt (" Immunit^s," p. 6fi) to Iiave the same index. All 
the fifty-four skulls would therefore give a meaa index of 78'5, 
more meso-cephalic than otherwise. But the larger number of 
measurements on the hving subject give results aa follows ; — 










83 -a 


19 '4 


11 '0 
10 '9 



86 '0 
84 '3 



With the larger numbers the brachyeephalic character of the 
Jewish head seems to come out very distiactly. It is to be 
observed that Majer and Kopernicld considered that the ooidal 
head went with blonde hair, the brachyeephalic with dark ; but 
the number of long heads examined by thera was small (fifteen) 
and Blechmann found one of hia dolichocephalic subjects with 
dark hair. He also asserts, without a particle of evidence, so 
far as I can see, that Sephardic Jews are dolichocephalic. Dr. 
BetMoe. indeed, states that Ashkenazim have mostly " ooidal " 
heads, but the above statistics only show how untrustworthy 
mere impressions are, even when those of a trained observer. 

flair, Syes, aiid Complexion. — Here we reacli somewhat more 
definite results, baaed upon nearly 120,000 measurements I have 
collected in the table on the following page. 

From these figures we see that though Jews are darker both 
in eyes and in hair than any of the other nationohties, they have 
about 21 per cent, blue-eyed and about 29 per cent, blonde-haired, 
and have thrice as many red-haired individuals as either Poles, 
Russians, or Austrians, and half as many again as Germans. It 
may be remarked that anthropologists are incUned to consider 
dark-haired races better fitted for the struggle for existence (F. 
Gallon, " Record," p. 8 ; Schimmer, " Erhebungen," p. xxiv). 
The s^nificance of these results aa regards the question of 
purity of race will concern us later. Meanwhile I would 
supplement the above list by one compiled by me from Dr. 
Beddoe's results in Ids paper " On the Physical Characteristics 
of the Jewish Eace" (Ethuol. Trans., 18fi0). 

These were the first published on the subject, and differ 
slightly in arrangement from the above, which mostly follow 
Virchow's epoch-making investigations into this subject. Dr. 
Beddoe examined 665 individuals in different places, and bygj 
taking the Jews of Turkey, Borne, Etnd the Sephardic congregatioi 








^ CO 

;o ao 

Jh- CO 

00 05 ^ 

• • • 

^ 05 Oi 
^ 00 xo 


• • 

o o 

Mi 00 




W5 en -Kji 

• ■ • 

Tf« fH rH 


I— • 

05 QD 
^ UO 


O U9 

C0 1>1> 

• • • 

05 00 ^ 


• • 


fH W3 05 
CO tb 00 






• * • • 

to CO 

O '«}« 05 O O 

vo ^ 

US on 


Jh- lO 00 
U9 Tfi CO 


\a 00 

t^ W5 (M 

• • • 

00 05 ^ 

O 05 


00 *> 

O '* 
00 xo 

00 o wo 

0<1 US kO 

\a GO 

• • 

00 CO 

Oil O 05 

00 U3 


05 00 

vo on 

Tjl CO 

to 00 

• • 

00 ^ 

»fl on 

05 ^ 
^ 00 



on ud 

XO 00 

05 fH t^ 

en OS 00 
to cq 00 


CO "^ 

6 00 

00 00 

00 l> 

do cq 
on CO 

CO 00 

on 05 cp 

-^ lO o 

on on 00 

00 00 

en CO 

rH05 CO 
"^ ^05 

\a 00 

• • 

00 ^ 

on CO 


do CO 




00 o 00 

• • • 

00 05 05 

rH on on 

o ©^ 
on CO 

O O W3 

•^ • • 

00 ^ rH 
on 00 00 


©5 © >• 




00 d 












i '^ 
S d 

05 fe 



^1 _ 

© r^ 

- 00 























of London as Sephardim, I am enabled to give some data for 
difltinguishing between Sephardim and Ashkenazim as follows: — 











S75 ARhk. 









The dififerences are not very striking, with one remarkable 
exception: Sephardim have three times as many red-haired as 

Colour-blindness may be taken here, though perhaps belonging 
to morbidity. The following table exhibits the chief results 
hitherto obtained, which are practically decisive of Jewish 
inferiority in this respect, due doubtless to the greater poverty 
of Jews and their long confinement in towns :— 









London (boysj 

» (girls) 
Frankf oit 

Italy (boys) . . 

„ (girls) .. 





• ■ 

Cohn, " Centblt. Augenkunde," 

1873, p. 97. 
" Trans. Ophth. Soe.," I, p. 198. 

Carl, " Untersuchungen," 1881. 
Ottolenghi, '*Gaz. Cliniclie," 1883. 
Id,, " Vessillo Israel," Sept., 1884. 

Ottolenghi, from whom I take Cohn's and CarFs results, 
observed that three out of his thirteen cases were cousins, two of 
whom had a maternal grandmother also colour-blind. The 
Ophthalmological Society's results were obtained from the poorly 
nurtured children of the Jews' Free Schools, Bell Lane and 
Greek Street.^ 

Nose. — ^This feature is the one usually regarded as distinctive 
of the Jew, and is also considered anthropologically important 
(Topinard, "Anthropology," p. 358). I therefore give the few 
data I can gather as to its length and shape. Weisbach's nine- 
teen Jews vied with the Patagonians in possessing the longest 
nose (71 mm.) of all the nineteen races examined by him (Andree, 
" Volkskunde,'* pp. 32, 33), while they had at the same time the 
narrowest noses (34 mm.). Blechniann's century of Jews, on 
the other hand, had an average length of 51*9 mm., and breadth 

' Query : may the colour-blindneBB of Jewish girls account to any extent for 
their choice of primary colours for dresses ? 


35*9, giving a nasal index of 69*6 (" Anthropologie," p. 33). As 
regards shape, his results are — 2 short, 10 broad, 2 retrouss4, 
4 flat, and 84 straight, while Majer and Kopemicki give the 
following table (p. 187) : — 



Jews (742 in number) . 











But that one saw it " in print," most persons would doubt the 
possibility of meeting Jews with noses *' tiptilted like a lily."^ 

Lips are another characteristic feature of Jews, but the only 
measurements I know of are those of Blechmann, who gives 54 
thin, 31 moderately thick, and 17 thick (" Anthrop.," loc, cit.), a 
result rather opposed to one's preconceived notions about the 
thick lips of Jews. 

Expression, — Turning from the separate features of the Jewish 
face to that combination of them which we term expression, it 
might seem impossible to give anything more than subjective 
impressions. Thanks, however, to Mr. Galton, science has been 
enabled to call in the aid of photography to obtain those averages 
which no measurements can supply. Some two years ago I 
applied to him to know whether he would assist me in obtaining 
composites of Jewish faces, and to this he was kind enough ta 
consent. A number of photographs of Jewish boys were taken 
at the Jews* Free School, through the kindness of Mr. Angel, the 
well known head-master of that admirable institution, and Mr. 
Galton was good enough to compound them in the way familiar 
to all here {vide F. Galton, " Inquiries into Human Faculty," App. 
B, III). Plates I and II contain a number of the results, together 
with the individual components from which they were com- 
pounded.^ It will be observed that in the composite (C) contain- 
ing the largest number of components (thirteen) the face has 
distinctly what is termed a Jewish expression, though it is full- 
faced. It follows that the peculiar expression known as Jewish 
cannot be due to the droop of the nose alone. The full lips, the 
heavy eyelids, and large irides have much to do with it. So far 
as the nose is concerned it is the flexibility of the alee, or wings 

^ Harim (1 Chron. xxiv, 8) and Harumaph (Neh. iii, 10) were flat-nosed if 
their names do not belie them. Roven Salomo, a Jew of 1347, figured in 
" Bevue d. ifitudes Juives," No. 12, has a distinctly concave nose. 

^ See explanation at end of paper, p. 53. 

of the nostrils, that are distinctive rather than its curvature.^ 
I may add that an artist friend has pointed out to me ttiat 
a figure 6 with a long tail gives the hest caricature outhne of 
the Jewish nose, and here again the importance of the ala> is 
manifest. In the profile co-composite (G) containing ten Jewish 
noaes rolled into one, it will he noticed that the outline is hlurred, 
t,e., not typical, while the accentuation of the alee is clearly 
marked, and hpa and chin are tolerahly distinctive. The actual 
expression in the various composites varies to some degree, 
and it is a doubtful point whether the peculiar intensity of the 
Jewish gaze (well exhibited in composite D) is not due to long 
residence in ghetti and the accompanying social isolation. I 
fancy at least that it disappears to a large extent in Jews who 
pass very much of their life among Gentiles. At the same 
time something like it may be traced throughout the history of 
Art, and I may refer to one of the earhest representations of Jews 
in Art, the Assyrian bos relief of the captive Jews of Lachish 
(b.c. 701) heing taken before Sennacherib (see Sayce, "Fresh 
Light," p. 145). The subject is undoubted and well known, 
and the persistency of the Jewish type for the last 2,600 years 
is conclusively proved by it. But a careful examination shows 
that the Assyrian artist gives the Jewish captives very much 
the same type of face as their captors, the chief difference 
consisting in the fact that the Jews have the beard cut, the 
usual sign of captivity. The female slaves behind Sennacherib's 
throne might have been taken from the synagogue gaUeriea of 
to-day, and yet we have no warrant that they are Jewesses, 
The relief then shows not only the persistency of the Jewish 
type, but its practical identity with the ordinary Semitic type 
of those days. I possess a photograph which shows the same 
at the present day : I bought it thinking it to be a collection 
of Eastern Jews, and found out afterwards that it was a stance of 
Syriac Mohammedans.' 

III. — Historical Data. 

And this leads me to the main subject of this paper — the 
question of the purity of the Jewish race. M. Eenan, who re- 

' Qucrj: may this aid liistrionicBipreBBJonP GaorgH Elint gitea the Alchariai, 
" B play ot the brow and nostril which mads a tacit luEguage" ("Dun. Deronda," 
p. 469). 

' Before lesTing the anthropometric data I eliould havB referred to the earlier 
age »t which menBtnintion appears among Jewesses. Raciboraki, "Traits de 
la MenatruAtion," 1860, p. 630, pvits it at 14 years 3 months and 26 dayn, 
whioh would place l.liem earliest in Topiiiard's acalo ("Anthrop.," p. 366), 
eioept for Southern Asia. Cf., too, PIobs, " Dua Weib," i, 148. Xhe n'fttt«r 
requires furtlier investigation. 


cently expressed his regretthat he did not give his youth to science, 
as he would have certainly anticipated Darwin, has made his first 
incursion into scientific fields in an examination of this question 
("Le Judaisme comme race et comme religion," Paris, 1883). 
His results are mainly against the racial purity of the Jews, 
and in this conclusion he has been followed by M. Isidore Loeb 
in an excellent article, Jwifs^ in Saint Martin's " Dictionnaire de 
Geographic," and we have just heard how Dr. Neubauer upholds 
the opinion of his illustrious friend. Notwithstanding the 
authority which must attach to such names when dealing 
with a matter mainly historical, I hope to show that the last 
word has not been said on the subject, and. that anthro- 
pological science in particular has certain considerations to 
suggest which must give us pause before accepting the con- 
clusions at which these authorities have arrived. The whole 
question is very complicated, and I will attempt to give the 
strongest arguments on both sides, beginning with those un- 
favourable to the purity. 

(1) Prosdytism, — The question of the former intermarriage of 
Jews and Gentiles resolves itself into that of proselytism, since 
Jewish law does not recognise mdtrimonium with a person of 
another belief.^ But in the early days of Israel this was not the 
case. After the conquest of Canaan, the Israelites entered into 
frequent connubial relations with the conquered. We may 
perhaps see a reference to the beginning of this process^ in the 
curious tradition about the Judge (or Baron) Ibzan of Bethlehem 
who, we learn (Jud. xii, 9), " had thirty sons and thirty daugh- 
ters: the latter he sent abroad and took in thirty daughters 
from abroad for his sons." But such intermarriage with the 
daughters of Canaan are of little significance from the anthro- 
pological point of view.^ For there was no such diversity of 
type among the Semites as among the Aryans. The Semitic 
languages diflfer from one another only as the Eomance tongues 
do, and do not show such wide differences as those between 
Eussian and Welsh. We have already seen that Jews and 
Assyrians of the eighth century B.C. were of practically the 
same type. The distinction between Jews and other Semites 
was religious, not racial. The strenuous prohibition of Ezra 
against marriage with strange women was directed against 
idolatry rather than exogamy. For even before this date we 

1 Vide Frankel, " G^rundlinien d. mos. Elierechts," p. 22, and Ritter, '« Philo," 
p. 71. Philo makes the prohibition even stronger, taking Deut. yii, 3, as binding 
with regard to all nations. 

^ Query : was this a case of exogamy with other Israelite totem-clans ? (cf. supra, 
p. 29, note.) 

^ Jewish tradition recognised Ammonites, Moabites, and Idumseans to be of 
same race {cf. Wellhausen, art. Israel, " Ency. Brit.," " History,'* p. 429). 

find traces of proselytiam in the Bible.^ The second Isaiah 
(Ivi, 6) speaks of " the sons of the stranger who join themselves 
under the Loid." The late book of Esther also refers to 
proselytes (viii, 17 ; ix, 27), while three of the later Paalma (Pa. 
cxvii, cxviii, cxxxv), possibly of the second century b.c., divide 
Jews into three classes — "the House of Israel," "the House 
of Aaron," and " those who fear the Lord." The last became the 
technical expression for proselytes among Hellenistic Jews 
(Acts, passim). So numerous had these proselytes become that 
they were classified according to the motives which led to their 
conversion. There were Proselytes of the Lion — from fear; 
Proselytes of the King's table — from ambition; Proselytes for 
a wife; and there was a grand division made between Proselytes 
of the Gate, who did not observe the most stringent of the 
Mosaic regulations, and Proselytes of Eighteousness, who were 
even as Jews in all that concerned the Mosaic precepts. Now 
it is only with the latter class that we are concerned, since only 
these had the fuE jus ammibii with persons of Jewish race and 
religion. It is therefore of critical importance to know whether 
any of the many proselytes mentioned by Josepbus, the New 
Testament, and the Talmud were proselytes of the Gate or of 
Eighteousness, the latter being the only ones that affect 
the main question. The Jews of Antioeh only made the 
many inhabitants proselytes "after a fashion" {rpovifi rivi 
" Wars," VII, iii, 3), i.e., they were only Proselytes of the Gat& 
I am surprised to find a scholar like M. Eenan omitting this 
cardinal restriction, which tells dead against his position.' 
St. Paid, in his addresses to the congregations at Antioeh 
(Acts xvii, 16, 26), Tbessalonica (xvii, 4), Athens (id., 17), 
carefully distinguishes Jews and proselytes. And in a signi- 
ficant passage ("Wars," VI, ix, 3), the bearing of wliich has 
been overlooked by M. Eenan and his followers, Josephus 
mentions that the foreigners who came to worship at Jerusalem 

' For many of the following facU I am indebted to J. Bi'Miaye' masterlj 
ewaj, " Dia Gottegfiircbtigen bai Jurenal," in the Mom mien presontotion volume, 
and now roprintal in hu "Gesam. Sclirifl.," ii, 71-80 {cf. Mayor's "Note* on 
Jutonal." liT, 99, e( leq.). 

- M, B.eiDaiitKndatae Agaiitaiiie»4 a InarBulte an graadnoabretrffeUeaetiU 
en fimt hiis partie de latr comtauneavle ("La Judainne, 4o.," p. 12). Ho 
should have added lo the last clause aonie euch phrtue bb tant bien que mat. 
Similarly in the trauslation of 0. Apion ii, 39, M. Kenan (p. 1^ haa not 
quite preBcrred the force of the Greek jroXXa, which bUows that the Greeks and 
barhariaTu referred to did not obacrye all the Jpwish dietary taws, and were there- 
fore not full proseljta*. A» a mailer of fai't tbey were not pro«!jtea nt »11, nor 
doe« JosephuB »»y tiioy were. He is referring to the well-known fact that many 
other nations have cuatsms similar to the Jews, e.g., the Sabbath or diutarr laws 
and with his usuhI buaitfulneeB pretends that tbey learnt them from the Jeirisb 

law. Only the fact that M. Renan iulcndad his diacourse for a con' '■ — 

(p. 1} can excuse these slipB. 


were not allowed to share the Passover meal, i.e., were only 
proselytes of the Gate. When Josephus calls Nero's wife, 
Poppoea, a proselyte (deoae^rjs:), this can only mean that she was 
interested in Jewish doctrines : it cannot imply any adherence 
to Jewish customs. It was to this very class of proselytes of the 
Gate that Paul appealed, and founded Christianity by granting 
full religious rights to them. The triumph of Christianity 
meant, therefore, that this rapidly growing class were drawn off 
from Judaism to the new sect before they had been fully 
incorporated with the older body. After the wars with the 
Eomans Jewish propagandism would have but little scope, 
as, indeed, M. Eenan allows. So that for the existence of full 
proselytes during this period we have only the evidence of 
Juvenal, Dio Cassius, and Tacitus, who might easily be struck 
by a few examples of what they considered a barbarous custom.^ 
lie last says that Jews never intermarried (" Hist." v. 5). 

So soon as Christianity became the State religion, prosel3rtism 
would become dangerous. Severe penalties were placed by the 
laws against intermarriage of Jew and Christian, which was 
placed on the same footing as adultery (390 A.D., " Cod. Theod.," 
LV, ii).* The Councils of the Church included similar injunc- 
tions as a matter of course, one set of canons following the 
preceding.^ The severity of the sentence is often enough to 
show how rarely the laws were transgressed. This, however, if 
any, was the time when any intermarriage could have taken 
place, owing to the kindly relations of Jews and Christians. 
Unfortunately, it is also the time (300 A.D.-800 A.D.) of which 
we know least about Jews. Before, however, we reach Charle- 
magne's epoch two instances of proselytism on a large scale 
occurred in the countries beyond civilisation, and these have 
naturally been emphasised by M. Eenan and his followers. 
In South Eussia the kingdom of the Cozars,* situated midway 
between the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Emirate of 
Bagdad, ingeniously evaded the necessity of acknowledging 
either of these powers by formally adopting Judaism, which 
both had to tolerate. The adhesion was scarcely more than 

* See M. Derenbourg's temperate and judicious treatment of the question, 
" Essai/' chap. xiv. With regard to converts at the Imperial courts (Qraetz, 
"Die jud. Proselyten," 1884), it is a great question whether for " Jewish" we 
ought not to read " Christian." I see an instance of this in Epict., " Disc," II, ix. 

* Constantine appointed the punishment of death against such marriages 
(«*Cod. Theod.,"xvi, 6). 

3 Elvira (320), xvi; Chalcedooia (388), xv ; Third Orleans (538); Ma9on 
(581) ; Third Toledo (589), xiv; Fourth Toledo (633), Ixiii. Basnage, "His- 
toire," ix, 409-414. 

* St. Martin, "Les Khazars," 1851. Harknvy. in "Russ. Revue," 1876. 
For Arabic and Hebrew sources, see Carmoly, " Itineraires de Sainte Terre.," 

formal, and there is little evidence of any great intermixture 
of pure Jews with these Cozars, except by the few learned Jewa 
who taught them their creed,' These seem to have been of 
the Karaite sect, and we find still the headcentre of the 
Karaites in the Crimea, where the Cozars ultimately concentrated. 
All accounts represent the Karaites as perfectly un-Jewiah in 
appearance, and I would venture to apply to them Napoleon's 
witticism, " Qrattez le Karaite et vous trowverez h Khazar."^ The 
Cozars were crushed in tlie ninth century, while the Polish 
Jews, who are supposed to show signs of intermixture with 
Cozars, came iato that kingdom fi-om Germany long afterwards. 
Similarly, a somewhat earlier conversion of Arab tribes in 
Yemen has only left traces on contemporary Judaism in the 
Falashas, to whom Rohlfs also denies Jewish features ("Ahes- 
synien," 1884, p. 2731, Karaites and Falashas, with the 
Daggatouns of the Sahara and the Beni-Israel of Bombay, 
are the only Jews of to-day who display ahen blood, and 
these form only one per cent, of Israel, and never intermarry 
with other Jews. 

ARer the age of Charlemagne no great intermixture of Jewa 
and Aryans can be discerned. As Europe became Christendom, 
the Church isolated the Jews more and more by cutting them 
off from the trade guilds, originally religious, and from all civil 
rights : they became the King's chattels in a literal sense. The 
mere fact of their being cooped up in ghetti would be enough to 
put a bar in the way of frequent intercourse, and it was the 
true insight of an artist that made Sir Walter Scott regard a 
marriage between Eebecca and Ivanhoe as rendered impossible 
by the circumstances of tlie Middle Ages." 

To sum up this short sketch of Jewish proselytisra, this 
undoubtedly existed before the spread of Christianity, but only 
or maiidy so far as Proselytes of the Gate were concerned, 
who could not marry with Jews, and these were soon intercepted 
by the Church, which afterwards took most stringent measures 
to prevent any relapse, 1 would add that the case is somewhat 
different as regards slaves, and it is possible that some infusion 
of Aryan blood came in through this means, but the amount 

' There were only 4,000 JewiBh Cozajts in all (Fraehn, " Db Cliniaris," 1822, 

E. 13). But to tbemiitraiy effeot see Maaudi, " Meadown of Gold," p. 407, The 
itterg intsrchuiged hi^tWBSn tho Ehaa of the Oozora and R. Hiadai of i^paiu, serve 
to show the rare intercouraB of the Cotaa with the rest oE tho Jewish world. 

^ M. RenttQ malieB much of a Eamito being named ToitamiBh. This might 
be explained by his being a Goiar. Bub Jews havs always freely adopted local 
uuuts (Ziiii«, ■' NamCQ der Juden "). Cf. Taltu. Jer., QittJn i, 66 S. 

" Though the name ghetto is derirod from the foundry at Venice, in whioh 
Jewa were eoitpod up in 1510, the thing eiistod as eiirlr a.» 1090 at Snlemo, if 
not earlier at ConaUiiilinoplo (Qraoti, v, 37), or ctod in Eorao and Aleiandlj 


would be necessarily small; and the children, according to 
Jewish law, followed the statvs of the mother. 

The above estimate of Jewish proselytism is substantiated 
by all the evidence I can gather on the subject. Thus while of 
the 200 doctors of the Mishna up to 200 A.D., no less than eight* 
were of alien blood (though that Semitic), of the 1,500 doctors 
of the Gemara, from 200 to 600 A.D., I can only find one (Mari 
bar Eahel)^ who seems to have been descended from a proselyte. 
This seems to indicate the dying out of proselytism after Chris- 
tianity, though the change of scene from Palestine to Babylon 
may have also something to do with it. Eava and Nachman, 
two Babylonian Eabbis of the fourth century, in discussing a 
certain law, dismiss the case of a proselyte as it is so seldom 
(Gittin, 85 a). So, too, on looking through some eight 
hundred inscriptions, I found two female proselytes^ in the 
classical ones (114 in number), but not a single one on tomb- 
stones of later date.* The colossal erudition of Wolfius 
("Biblioth. Hebr.," II and IV) could only gather together 
forty-four names of proselytes during the Middle Ages, and with 
my utmost diligence I have only been able to add sixteen to 
these, five of whom died as martyrs for their new faith.* As 
regards Moslem countries I cannot speak with such confidence. 
Moses de CouQy is said by Basnage to have rebuked the Jews 
of Spain for marrying Moorish women. But such intermarriage 
would only aflfect Sephardim, who form only 6 per cent, of the 
Jews of to-day, and would be for the most part with Semitic 
blood. The boasted tolerance of Islam* only lasted down to 
1040, and afterwards there was but little difference in the 
treatment Jews received under the Crescent and the Cross. 

And even if history showed a greater infusion of Aryan 
blcod than the above estimate would allow, the effect of this on 
Jewish characteristics would tend to be minimised by certain 
anthropological principles which have been completely over- 
looked by M. Eenan and followers. I have already referred to 
the comparative infertility of mixed marriages (the Talmud 

^ Some of these were very disfcinguished, e.g. : Akiba, the Targumist Onkelos, 
R. Meir, Schemajah, and Abtalion ; three others are mentioned by Derenbourg, 
p. 223n. {Cf. Briill, " Mishnalehrer vonheidnischer Abkunf t,'* inhis " Jahrbuch," ii). 

^ I owe this name to the erudition of my friend Mr. S. Schechter. 

' Beruria, re-named Sara^ Orelli, No. 2522, and Soteriay who is termed maier 
synagogcBy Id. No. 2523, both at Bome. A third given by Bemays, ii, 80, waa 
not a full proselyte ("metuenti"). 

'' At Venice (Berliner), Toledo (Zunz), Paris (Longperier), Amsterdam 
(Castro), and other places given by Wolf, Zunz, and others. 

* Four at Wissembupg, 1264 (Neubauer, " Rev. Etudes Juives," No. 7), and 
one at Augsburg the same year (Zunz, ** Literaturgeschichte," p. 350). 

^ One of Maimonides' responses is to a proselyte from Islam (Fmnkel, 
"j:ntwurf,"p. 30). 

says they oaly produce girls, Nidda 13 b, Jebam, 62 a), t 
I would now point out its consequences. Taking the most 
extreme case imaginable, let ua suppose that as many as one- 
tenth of all Jews and Jewesses married outside the paJe. 
Estimating the pure Jewish population to increase uniformly 
half as much again each generation of thirty years, I suppose 
the mixed marriage to result in only one surviving child, so that 
the next generation only replaces its Jewish parents. Then 
gradually raising the fertility as the offspring many with Jews, 
but never making it equal to pure Jewish marriages, I tind that 
in six generations, or two hiuidred years, the original ten per 
cent, has sunk to httle over two. 

And even this small percentage would show but little traces 
of its alien origin, owing to another authropological principle to 
which I now proceed to call attention, I believe for the first 
time. On examining some cases of mixed marriages, I waa 
struck by the uniformity with which the children resembled the 
Jewish side, and I was led to make special inquiry into the 
matter, with the following results : — Of 84 such marriages 
examined by me, 9 were sterOe ; of 35 I could obtain no definite 
results; 22 showed Jewish prepotency ; 13Gentile,and5mixed. 
Now when it is remembered that if mixed marriages occurred 
In the Middle Ages the offspring must have married again 
within the Jewish pale, it is hardly likely that the Gentde 
blood would persist tlttoughout the ages, even if it were pre- 
potent, and if the above rather rough results have any validity 
the prepotency is rather on the Jewish side, and at any rate 
there seems very little tendency to real intermixture (only in 
five famdies out of forty-nine).' Another fact pointing in the 
same direction is the interesting point that ui famdies iuto which 
there has been an infusion of Jewish blood this tends to appear 
in a marked and intensely Jewish cast of features and expressioiL 
1 know of four instances of this myself, and Mr. Galton tells 
lae that a couple occur in the family records he has been 
Oollecting. Now as reversion is mostly towards tiie side of 
greater prepotency, this curious fact confirms our conclusion as 
to the superior prepotency of Jewish blood. 

(2) But it wiU be asked, and has been asked, " How wdl 
you account for the wide divergences from the Jewish type of 
skull, nose, eyes, hair, &c., which are shown in the statistics on 
these points given above, and must indeed be a matter of 
n obseiTation ?'■ M. Renau has decided this point literally 

ig anj ancestor migit perhaps be rojigUj 

* Tbe cbaDce of a child t 

:pmwBd bj tbti iwiprousl 

$. 8i "Nature," aojit. 6th, 

great-graaJfatber ia -^. Cf., I 

Thus the chance of i 

I, Galton, "Her. Qea.," p. 927 i*. i 


ex cathedrd : seated in his chair at the Bibliotheque Nationale, 
he has observed the Jewish savants who have applied for his 
aid, and concluded that there are several types of Jews which 
are absolutely irreducible to one another (" Le Judaisme," &c., 
p. 25). But the question of types is a question of averages, and 
you cannot so easily decide upon the non-existence of a 
type by pointing to a few divergences from it. An organism is 
not a manufactured article turned out by machinery, but may 
modify itself and be modified by the environment, introducing 
a principle of variability which the type to develop. 
An organic type therefore exists not where there is no variation, 
but where the variations follow the law of error, and where the 
modulus of variation is tolerably constant. This is in the main 
the case with most of the anthropological measurements I have 
laid before the meeting, and it foUows that the variations, 
though they may be due to intermixture, may also be merely 
normal divergences from the standard. 

It seems hardest to accept this result with regard to red hair, 
which we have seen to be exceptionally prevalent among Jews. 
Yet, as a matter of fact, red hair seems to be only a natural 
complement to black, so that for anthropological purposes we 
might even term red " light black." The colour of the hair is 
determined by the presence and amount of two pigments : when 
the darker is absent from any physiological cause red hair is 
the consequence, just as when both are absent albinism appears 
(Topinard, '* Elements d' Anthropologic," 1885, p. 323). Now just 
as albinoes occur among all races, including negroes, so does 
red hair. Eusebius declared that Adam was rufous, not only 
from the etymology of the name, but because red-haired men 
occurred among all the races of mankind (Topinard, loc, dt.). 
That " erythrism " among Jews is not due to intermixture, but 
probably to defective nutrition, is shown in the first place by 
its occurring among Jews of Africa and the East. It has been 
observed in Algiers, Tunis, Bosnia, Constantinople, Smyrna, Syria, 
Persia, and Bokhara.^ Secondly, from my analysis of Dr. Beddoe's 
results, it will be observed that red hair occurs among Sephardim 
to a greater extent than among Ashkenazim, and it has never been 
contended that the Sephardim have mixed much with any race 
markedly rufous.^ And, thirdly, when it does occur among 
Ashkenazim of North Europe,it is found more among Jews than in 

^ Dr. Beddoe has paid particular attention to thjs point; see his paper 
previously cited, pp. 12-19 of the reprint and taWe at end. Andree, " Zur 
Volks.,'* p. 35, repeats most of this, but is mistaken in saying that rufous Jews 
have been observed at Cochin. I have seen somewhere that the red-haired Jews 
of Palestine claim to be Benjamites. 

* A certain amount of erythrism was, however, introduced into Spain by the 
Goths ((/. Beddoe, loe. cit, p. 24). 

the indigenous population,' whereas if it were due to intermixture 
we should expect to find the amount of erythrism among Jews iu- 
termediate between that of the natives among whom they dwell 
and the supposed original bla^;k hair of the Semites. Indeed, hut 
for the abundant preBence of red hair among Scotchmen it might 
be more open to explain the origin of red hair among Etiropeans 
as due to an infusion of Jewish blood than to account for it 
among Jews by assuming intermixture with Aryans. 

The argument from red hair being thus dismissed with costa, 
the existence of blue eyes among Jews in relatively large pro- 
portions need not be regarded as overwhelming proof of inter- 
mixture. As is well known, all eyes are blue at birth, i.e., we 
see through to the back of the baby's iris, and if no pigment 
cells are deposited in the iris the eyes remain blue to the end of 
life (Topinard, loc. di.). Thus blue eyes, as well as red hah-, are 
a kind of minor albinism, and may result from defective nutri- 
tion or other physiological causes like red hair. That this is 
probably the real cause of its occurrence among Jews is eonfij'med 
by the fact that we find blue eyes among Asiatic as well as 
Etiropean Jews (c/. Beddoe, loe. di.). 

It may be convenient that I should here add what little 
evidence I have been able to collect as to the appearance of 
Jews in the past It is a question whether E.'^au (Edom) was 
regarded as having red hair (Gen. xxv, 25), because that colour 
was frequent among the Idmnfeana. Dr. Beddoe suggests that 
red hair among Jews may have been due to intermixture with 
Idumseans after they became proselytes ; but the existence of 
red hair among them, their proselytism,^ and their intermarrying 
with Jews are all more or less conjectural. In the regulations 
about leprosy (Lev. xiii) it seems to be implied that the hair 
was black, or at any rate dark. The Shunamite says, " I am 
black [swarthy], ... for the sun has browned me" (Cant, 
i, 5), but on the other hand speaks of the "raven locks" of 
her beloved (iHd., v, 11). If we could trust to the etymologies 
of proper names tie five persons bearing the names Harira and 
Harumaph in the Bible had flat noses. The first definite infor- 
mation I can find is contained in a sayuig of a Mishnic Babbi, 
li, Ishmael (about 120 A.D.), who says (Neg. ii, 1), "The sons of 
Israel are like boxwood, neither black nor white, hut between 
the two," i.e., of olive complexion. Both Mialma and Gemara 
seem to tise " black " (skachar, vide Buxtorf, sub voce, col. 2372) 
as synonymous both with "hair" and with "youth."* The 

' Derenbourg {" Essai," p. 227) sbjs that tbe proseljtiam of tlie IdumicuiB 
«ft8 more pulitioal tbiui religions. 

' It is ta be remnrked, however, that the c\\ie( paesBge (Pirke Abotb iii, 12) 
on whieli thia identifi Cation ia based ia not of certain loteqiretation. See Tttjlor, 
- "", Geiger("lfaelig. Sohr.," iv, p- 333), iind Strack ii ' 


Targum or Chaldaic paraphrase on 1 Sam. xvi, 12, makes David 
"Ted-haired" instead of "ruddy," and the mistranslation has 
passed into Luther's version. This shows at least that the 
Jews of the time when the Targum was written (about 600 A.D.) 
were not averse to regarding the typical Jewish king as rufous. 
The light hair given to the Christ in early Art,^ the traditional 
red hair attributed to Judas Iscariot, as well as the golden locks 
of Mary Magdalene, require further investigation. Later on I 
find Jehuda Halevi (c. 1140 A.D.) speaking of the golden hair of 
his beloved,^ a Spanish Jew, Eoven Salomo, 1349 A.D., with 
light brown hair,^ and Eembrandt's Eabbi in the National 
Gallery has a red beard. All these indications serve to show 
that red hair at least is no late importation into Jewish anthro- 
pology.* Evidence about blue eyes is more difficult to obtain, 
as it is still a doubtful point among scholars whether either 
Bible or Talmud has any word to express blue. 

Altogether, then, the two chief arguments hitherto urged 
to prove intermixture — which may be roughly sununarised as 
proselytism and red hair — cannot be said to be decisive, while 
there are other more positive arguments tending to show the 
comparative purity of the Jewish race, and tp these I now turn* 

I. The first and perhaps chief of these is the existence of a 
class of Jews who are not permitted by Jewish law to maiTy 
even full proselytes. These are the priests, or Cohanim, the Beni 
Aaron or sons of Aaron. We have already seen that at the time 
of the Maccabees, Jews were addressed in the Psalms under three 
appellatives — Israelites, Aaronites, and Proselytes. The sons of 
Aaron could only intermarry with the daughters of Aaron or of 
Israel. The discussion about the comparative purity of Babylon 
and the surrounding districts which gave rise to the saying, 
"Babylon is sound, Mesene dead. Media ill, and Elam on its 
last legs " (Kidd. 71 a), was probably concerned with the purity 
of Cohanite marriages, for which any perceptible amount of 
" paste " or intermixture was considered as objectionable.* The 

^ See "Diet. Christ. Antiq.," art. "Clirisi, Early Bepresentations of," and 
authorities there quoted. 

* Geiger, " Divan," p. 123. The poet uses, I regret to observe, the same words 
as are used in the i$ible to represent the discoloration of the hair on the leprous 
spot (Lev. xiii, 30). 

3 Figured in " Rev. d. Et. Juives," No. 12. 

* It is worth while remarking that the Cozars, according to Ibn Foslan, had 
black hair {cf. Lagneau, " Denombrement," p. 49, note). 

* Upon the difficult question of Issahy or '* paste," there are two papers in 
Graetz, "Monatsft," one by Graetz himself, '*lllegitime Mischehen in Judfia,*' 
1879, pp. 481-508, and one by F. Rosenthal, " Ueber Issah," 1881, pp. 38-48, 
113-123,207-217. Cy., too, Graetz" Das Konigreich Mesene," pp. 31-83. I fancy 
that the custom of consanguineous marriages may be connected with the desire 
to preserve purity of descent ; cf, B. Meir's recommendation (Eidd. 71 o^ 
'* Monats," 1879, p. 507), and Tobit, who marries of his own kindred (i, 9). 

I uunUte 

saying and similar ones cannot be pressed to prove any wide 
admixture, and only serve to show how carefully the purity of 
Cohanite marriages was preserved, and the notice taken of any 
deviations from endogamy. It will be of interest to ascertain 
the number of these Cohanim who are themselves pure, and 
must have set an example of exclnsiveness to their fellow-Jewa. 
In the return under Nehemiah, the four families of priests 
numbered 4,289, out of 49,942 (Neh. vii, 39-42, 66, 67). In 
two lists of martyrs killed at Nurnben^ in the years 1298 and 
1349, the Cohanim number 91 out of 1,300, almost exactly the 
same proportion as in Ezra's time, though one may expect to 
find the Cohanim more ready to suffer martrydom than other 
Jews.' In Jewish ritual it is cnstomaiy that the first " called 
up" to the reading of the Law should be a Cohen, and there are 
only five on ordinary days and eight on Sabbaths and festivals," 
thus indicating that a largo supply of Cohanim was regarded as 
usuah Among the two hundred inscriptions of the Venice "House 
of Life" or burial ground collected by Dr. Berliner ("Heb. Gmb- 
achriften," 1881), there are thdrteen Cohens (6'5 per cent), 
though here again it is probable that a greater proportion of 
these would be honoured with tombstones. The deacendanta of 
such Cohanim live and flourish at the present day, but it is 
impossible to determine their number, as their civil surname 
may not be Cohen. Thus Dr. N. M. Adler, the present Chief 
Eabbi of England, is a Cohen, though it is not necessary for a 
Jew to be a Cohen in order to be a minister. In lists of 4,720 
English Jews I found the Cohens to form 3 per cent., while in a 
Continental list of 4,600 they were but 2'3 (my " Studies," p. 4). 
The latter is probably somewhat misleading,^ aa in a hst of 33a 
Jewish celebrities in all European lands, culled from dictionaries 
of contemporary biograpliy, the Cohens number eleven, or very 
nearly 4 per cent., while I know of at least five of the re- 
mainder who might call themselves Cohen. Altogether I am 
inclined to think that there are about 5 per cent, of Cohanim 
among Jews, and these cannot have had any direct mixture 
with the outer world.' 
But though they may never marry a proselyte, they may 

' I caJi^ulate these from tho lists given by Dr. Noubttuer, "Memorbuoh da 
MajeniM," Beime, So. 7, p. 10 j and the Her. W. Lowe, " Memorbueh of Num- 
berg," 1B80. 

' This and the priestlj beoedii^tion are the oidy two functioDs nnw performed 
by Cohanim ; it would be interestiug to learn the origin of Uie poBition of the 
flngBre in the latter function, which are spreod so aa to leave a gap between the 
Brat and the la<t two. 

Lippo's " Bibliog. Leiicon " contains a large proportion of names of 
mLaUterB. and small congregations object to a Cohen or 
approach a dead body (Let " " 

* 'Xhere are said to bo t« 

'e said to bo less Cohanim among Sephardin. 


marry the daughters of proselytes, and thus introduce alien 
blood. E. Jose was for allowing them even to marry proselytes, 
while R. Jehuda declared against their marriage with any child 
of a proselyte: the law, however, went with the opinion of 
R Eleasar ben Jacob in the early part of the second century, 
who permitted marriage between a priest and a woman one of 
whose parents had been a proselyte (Mishna, Kidd. iv, 7j. 
Owing to this decision, later authorities doubted whether there 
were any true Cohanim, e.g.y Isaac ben Shesheth, of the thirteenth 
centuiy, while R. Samuel b. Modena, of the sixteenth, even 
allowed a Cohen to transgress the Law on this ground (Low, 
"Lebensalter," p. 114, and notes p. 391). There is also an amusing 
tradition told in the Talmud, aspersing the purity of Cohanite 
descent. It is said of Pashur ben Immer (in whom two of the 
four Cohanite branches appear to be conjoined), that he had 
four hundred female slaves, and that if you find an impudent 
Cohen nowadays, he is certainly descended from Pashur ben 
Immer (Kidd. 70, h.y I may add that even at the present day 
Cohens have the reputation of being hotter-tempered than other 
Jews. All these indications may modify any claim for absolute 
purity among Cohanim; and the fact that they do not differ 
perceptibly from other Jews may serve as an argument either 
for the general purity of the race, or, on the other hand, for 
the mixed origin of the Cohens, which would be very difficult 
to prove to any large extent. 

II. Another point on which I would lay stress, if the sugges- 
tion I make is borne out by facts, is with regard to the 
comparatively small variation of type among Jewesses as compared 
with Jews. I seem to observe that Jewesses have more 
uniformly what we term th6 Jewish face than Jews have. It 
is a universal law of animal life that, owing to sexual selection 
and other causes, the males of a species vary considerably more 
than the females. And, conversely, where we find the females 
varying less than the males we may conjecture that we have a 
case of true species. Even more in Jewesses than in Jews, we 
can see that cast of face in which the racial so dominates the 
individual that whereas of other countenances we say, **' That is a 
kind, a sad, a cruel, or a tender face," of this our first thought is, 
" That is a Jewish face." That the difference should be almost 
innately perceived by Jews who have for nearly two thousand 
years associated all that is kindly with this type would be natural. 
But the diflference is almost as readily discerned by Gentiles, and 
even the negroes of Surinam, when they see a European and a 
Jew approach, do not say, " Here are two whites," but " Here is 
a white and a Jew " (Duttenhofer ap. Andree, " Volks.," p. 38). 

* I owe tins reference to the kindness of my friend Mr. Schecliter. 

I lay stress upon this point of expression because it ia after all 
the chief external trait that can be fixed upon as typically 
Jewish. We have the evidence of the monuments for ite 
persistence through the ages, and the scientific evidence of its 
typical character in the " composites" produced by Mr. Galton'a 
process, and given with thia paper. Mr. Gallon agrees with me 
that he has been more successful in producing definite types 
with -Jewish boys than with any other of his subjects (cf. the 
plate prefixed to his " Inquiriea into Human Facility "), It 
must be allowed, however, that there ia great force in the 
argument which would attribute the Jewish expression to the 
influence of isolation, so that we might define it as Semitic 
features with ghetto expression. But against this reasoning may 
be urged the early appearance of the Jewish type in the 
Assyrian monuments, and further, the fact of its appearing 
among the results of mixed marriages, where it must be racial. 
I have already pointed out what I consider to be the part of 
the Jewish expression due to isolation — -the intensity of the 
gaze shown so well in the adtilt "composite" T>, a fitting 
expression of a severe struggle for existence. 

The earlier period at which " the custom of woman " (Gen. 
xxxi, 35) appears among Jewesses {supra, p. xvii, note) is another 
trait which, if substantiated by wider induction, must be regarded 
as distinctly raciaL If Darwin's explanation of its origin 
("DeBcent,"lst edit., I, p. 212) be correct, it must have preserved 
ita periodicity for an incalculable time, and it may be surmised 
that any other temporal relation, euch as the age of its appear- 
ance, would be equally persistent. If it appears among Jewesses 
of St. Petersburg at the same early age as among Southern 
Asiatics, the Eastern origin of the former may be considered as 
well established.' But I fear that I am here falHng into the 
same error that has misled so many inquirers into Jewish 
biostatics : I may be trusting to statistics derived from a 
few hundred subjects to decide on a question affecting several 
millions. I will therefore content myself with pointing out 
the importance of the subject and the need of fuither investi- 

III. And, finally, in dealing with the question of the racial 
purity of Jews, as in the main we must deal with it, historically, 

' On the other liani), the Talmud Axes the age of pubertj for girU Sit the 
beginning of the thirteenth jear, i.e., when twelve Jears old (Nidda 46 a ; 
Ldw, " £ebeD«dter," p. \i2) ; this seenu earlier than at present. 

* There ii probnbly something diatinctiTO about the gait of Jewish women. 
Here in Englund, ftt tixij rate, most JsweseeB can be distinguiahed at once b; 
thoir ewajine woli. due to their walkins from the hip, not from the kneo. I ai 
whrtber this distiuption k merely a Continental babit imported inl 
>r whether it can be traced back to the times of Isaiah (iii, 16) . 


one has to take into account the fact that it takes two to make 
a mixed marriage, and that up to the present century there has 
been a repulsion, not perhaps wholly on one side, between Jews 
and Gentiles, which would scarcely allow of any wide com- 
munion such as would be implied in extensive intermarriage.^ 
The ancient and mediaeval States were Churches as well as 
States, and could not allow those to be citizens who could not be 
of the State religion. The isolation into which Jews were thus 
cast led, in the course of time, to a feeling of combined contempt 
and terror about them among the populace. The folklore of 
Europe regarded the Jews as something infra-human, and it 
would require an almost impossible amount of large toleration 
for a Christian maiden of the Middle Ages to regard union with 
a Jew as anything other than unnatural. The ancients had 
something of this feeKng, and it was trebly intensified when the 
Church rose into power, regarding the Jews as the arch-heretics, 
the Deicides, the incarnate anti-Christ. Even at the present day, 
with all its toleration or indifference, much of this feeling 
remains, as sad experience has shown in Germany, Austria, 
Eussia, and Eoumania, and while it lasts no commingling of 
the opposing parties can take place on a large scale. At 
the present day the only country where mixed marriages 
occur in appreciable numbers is Prussia, where the majority 
of the offspring are brought up as Christians (" Studies in Jewish 
Statistics," p. 54). Taking all the Jews of the world it may be 
doubted if one mixed marriage occurs to five hundred pure Jewish 
marriages. And if this is so under the most fortunate cir- 
cumstances Jews have ever known, intermarriage is not likely to 
have been more frequent in times of greater mutual repulsion. 
We might take the condition of affairs in Algeria as answering 
to the most favourable relations of Jews and Christians in the 
Middle Ages. Yet what do we find there ? During nearly half 
a century (1830-77) in an average population of 25,000 Jews 
there have only been thirty mixed marriages altogether — ^not 
one a year (Eicoux, "La Demographic de TAlgerie," 1880, 
p. 71). 

For these reasons I am inclined to support the long-standing 
belief in the substantial purity of the Jewish race, and to hold 
that the vast majority of contemporary Jews are the lineal 
descendants of the Diaspora of the Eoman Empire. The question 
is one the main interest of which is anthropological, and its 

* Even in the most isolated " colonies " of Jews, strenuous efforts seem to 
have been made to prevent fusion with the surrounding races. The white Jews of 
Cochin still preserve their identity from the black Jews. The Jews of China, the 
most isolated of all, seemed to have stood out for a long period. Even in 1851, 
two Tsungs (or 100 families) of the eight of which they were composed did not 
marry the daughters of the ** heathen Chinee" (Finn, " Orphan Colony," p. 23). 

complex difficulties can only hopfi for an ultimate solution from 
the progreaa of the Science of Man. I have therefore been glad 
of an opportunity of bringing it before the Anthropological 

Esyplanation of Plates I and II} 

The plates I and II accompanying this paper (first given in 
the Pkofof/raphie News of April 17th and 24th, 1885, with articles 
by Mr. Galton and myself, the former explaining the j 
fuUy) give eight composites of Jewish lads on the left hand s 
and opposite to the top and the bottom composite, the five com- 
ponents of which in each case they are composed. The middle 
composite on the right hand side is a co-composite of the other 
two, and thus practically contains the whole of the t«n components. 
The composite on the extreme left is in each case that of five 
older lads who are not shown. The composites have capital letters 
attached to them, the components smaller letters corresponding 
to the former, Thus A is the composite produced by taking the 
photographs «,, a,, a^, a^, and a^ accurately one on top of the 
other on the same sensitized plate. The discrepant features blur 
out while the common characteristics intensify one another and 
produce a type of aU the components. B represents in the same 
way 6, to Sj, and C is then formed by superimposing A on B on 
the same negative.' D is a composite produced like A from five 
photographs of older youtlis which could not be given for want 
of space. Similar explanations apply to the composite E to H, 

Of the fidelity with which they pourtray the Jewish expression 
there can be no doubt. Each of the eight composites shown 
might be taken as the portrait of a Jewish lad quite as readily 
as any of the components. In some cases, indeed, e.g., /g, the 
portraits are leas Jewish than the composites. The individuality 
and, I may perhaps even add, the beauty of these composites 
are very striking. It is difficult, even for those who know the 
process, to grasp the fact that the composite E is anything but 
the portrait of an individual ; and the same may be said of U, 
the composite of five older lads, whose portraits are not shown. 
A, again, the composite of the five a's, reminds me of several 
Jewish youngsters of my acquaintance, and might be taken for 
a slightly blurred photograph of any of them. This is the 
more curious since A does not resemble very closely any one of 
ita components. These facts are something more than curious ; 
they carry with them conclusions of scientific importance. If 
these Jewish lads, selected almost at random, and with parents 

' The Council is indiibteil for these plates to the kindness of Mr. Thamu 
BolftB, of the Phatographic Sews. 
* C WBB af terwards " stiSened " by the addition of three other photogrtpha. 



from opposite parts of Europe, yield so markedly individual a 
type, it can only be because there actually exists a definite and 
well-defined organic type of modem Jews. Photographic 
science thus seems to confirm the conclusion I have drawn from 
history, that there has been scarcely any admixture of alien blood 
amongst the Jews since their dispersion. 

These composites, there can be no doubt, give the Jewish ex- 
pression. WTiat do they teach us as to the elements which go 
to form it ? The popular idea of a Jewish face is, that it has a 
long nose. But the full- face composites A to D have decidedly 
the Jewish expression, though the shape of the nose does not 
appear ; and further, in composite H, as well as in co-composite 
G, which represents ten Jewish boys " rolled into one," the shape 
of the nose is markedly blurred, showing that there is no uni- 
formity in this respect. The popular impression seems, then, to 
be disproved by these composites. Yet it contains a part of the 
truth, as do most of those rough averages which we term im- 
pressions. The nose does contribute much towards producing 
the Jewish expression, but it is not so much the shape of its 
profile as the accentuation and flexibility of the Twstrils, This 
is specially marked in the composite D^ Take a narrow strip of 
paper and place it over the nose in this composite, and much, 
though not all, of the Jewish expression disappears. And in the 
profile components it will be observed that every face has the 
curve of the nostril more distinctly marked than would be the 
case in the ordinary Teutonic face, for example. 

A curious experiment illustrates this importance of the nostril 
towards making the Jewish expression. Artists tell us that the 
best way to make a caricature of the Jewish nose is to write a 
figure 6 with a long tail (fig. 1) ; now remove the turn of the 

mg. 1. Fig. 2. Fig, 3. 

twist as in fig. 2, and much of the Jewishness disappears ; and it 
vanishes entirely when we draw the continuation horizontally as 
in fig. 3. We may conclude, then, as regards the Jewish nose, 
that it is more the nostril than the nose itself which goes to form 
the characteristic Jewish expression. 

But it is not alone this " nostrility " which makes a Jewish 

face so casQy recognizable. Cover up every part of composite A 
but tbe eyes, and yet I fancy any one familiar with Jews would 
say, " Those are Jewish eyes." I am leas able to analyse this 
effect than in the case of the nose. The fulness of the upper 
lid, and the protnberance of the lower, may be remarked, as well 
as the scantiness of the eyebrows towards the outer edges. The 
size, brilliance, and darkness of the iris are also well marked. 
Many persons have remai-ked to me that Jewish eyes seem set 
closer together, and this property is seen in composites A and D 
(living much of its expression to the latter. I fail to see any of 
tiie cold calculation which Mr. Galton noticed in the boys at the 
school, at any rate in the composities A, B, and C. There is 
something more like the dreamer and thinker than the merchant 
in A. In fact, on my showing this to an eminent painter of my 
acquaintance, he exclaimed, " I imagine that is how Spinoza 
looked when a lad," a piece of artistic insight which is remarkably 
confirmed by the poitraits of the philosopher, though tbe artist 
had never seen one. The cold and somewhat hard look in 
composite D, however, is more confirmatory of Mr. Galton's 
impieasion. It ia noteworthy that this is seen in a composite 
of young fellows between seventeen and twenty, who have had 
to fight a hard battle of life even by that early age. 

There remain the forehead, mouth, and chin to add their quota 
to the Jewish expression. The predominating characteristic of 
the forehead is breadth, and perhaps the thick and dark hair 
encircling it has something to contribute to the Jewiahness of the 
face. The thickness of tbe lips, and especially a characteristic 
pout of the lower one, come out markedly in components and 
composites, both full face and profile. One may observe, too, 
the dimples (if one may use the term) vrhicli mark the termi- 
nation of the mouth, and are seen in an exaggerated foriH in a,. 
Finally, the heavy chin, especially marked in the profile com- 
posites, confirms the popular association of this feature with the 
quahty of perseverance, so ingrained in the Jewish nature. 

Wo learn, then, from these composites that the Jewish ex- 
pression ia considerably more compHcated than ia ordinarily 
thought. Judged by these composites the Jewish face has accen- 
tuated flexible nostrils, largish mouth, with ends well marked, 
and pouting under-lip, heavy chin, broad forehead, with 
prominent supercihary ridges acantUy covered with hair towards 
the outer extremities, and large brilliant dark eyes, set closely 
together, with heavy upper and protuberant lower lid, having a 
thoughtful expression in youth, transformed into a keen and 
penetrating gaze by manhood. 

But words fail one most giievoualy in trying to spht up into 
ite elements that most living of all things, human expression ; 


and Mr Galton's composites say in a glance more than the most 
skilful physiognomist could express in many pages. " The best 
definition," said the old logicians, " is pointing with the finger " 
{demonstratio optima definitw) ; and the composites here given 
will doubtless form for a long time to come the best available 
definition of the Jewish expression and the Jewish type. 


The Rev. Dr. Hermann Abler (Delegate Chief Rabbi) congratu- 
lated the President on having chosen a subject of such profound 
interest to the student of anthropology. He agreed with the view 
propounded by Mr. Jacobs in his exhaustive paper, that on the 
whole there had not been any large foreign admixture with the 
Jewish race. As a theme for further inquiry, he drew attention to 
the copies in Dr. Wright's " Empire of the Hittites " of the repre- 
sentations discovered near Carchemish of the ancient inhabitants of 
that country. Their features bore an extraordinary resemblance to 
the inferior Hebraic type, with low forehead, hooked nose, and thick 
lips. If the hypothesis of Professor Sayce and Dr. Wright were 
accepted as correct, might the exifitence of this type, which argued 
kinship with the Mongolian race, and which differed so materially 
from the characteristic features of the Semitic race — the expanded 
forehead and symmetrical lineaments — be traced to intermarriage 
with the Hittites who are represented in the Bible as descended 
from Ham ?* The dark and the blonde type, the speaker believed, 
should be regarded as original, dating from Bible times and 
described respectively in Canticles v, 11, and 2 Samuel xvi, 12. 
That the existence of the blonde type was not due to inter- 
marriage might be proved by the fact that it was to be found 
among the Jews of North Africa, Syria, Arabia, and Persia, where, 
owing to the prevalence of fanaticism, mixed marriages had rarely, 
if ever, taken place. Goethe, a man of science as well as a poet, 
had pithily summed up the main anthropological characteristic of 
the Hebrew race in the words : " Es ist das beharrhchste Volk der 
Erde. Es ist, es war, es wird sein." 

Dr. Behrend observed that M. Littr6 had well said that all 
springs of human conduct arose from two instincts, that of self- 
preservation, and the reproductive instinct for the preservation of 
the race. The rightful cultivation of these two instincts led to 
the primary desire of all humanity — happiness, and the chief 
element in human happiness was health. Health, both of body and 

* Note hy Mr. Jacobs. — These Jewish-looking " Hittites " were probably the 
Semitic yassals of the genuine Hittites. Mr. T. Tyler has pointed out to me at 
the British Museum two types on the monuments, one of Mongolian features 
and a kind of Chinese tail, the other of the ordinary Semitic type. The latter 
he conjectures to be the vassals of the former, and thus their Jewish appearance 
18 Bimplj another example of the identity of the Jewish and the Semitic type. 

mind, dopended mainly npon condnct, not only of the individual, bnt 
also from heredity. Therefore we shonld expect that as conduct 
(and through conduct, health ; and through hefl.lth, happiness) 
was the object of religion, a code of religion should lay down laws, 
which would be a guide of conduct, and thereby conduce to health, 
aud happiness. These primary iuBtiucts, that of self-preservation 
and the reproductive instinct, were mainly regulated in the Jewish 
ciide by laws concern ing diet, circumcision, and the aeiual relations. 
The speaker had shown elsewhere at length (in a aeries of papers 
'■ On the Comraunicability to Man of the Diseases from Animals 
used as Food ") that the Hebraic dietary laws preserved from the 
tracBmissioD of such diseases, and especially from the ravages of 
tuberculosis, which in its various forms was accountable for at 
least one-fifth of the entire mortality in this country. The sexual 
rt'lations were regolated in the Hebrew code by laws which aimed 
at conserving the highest attainable degree of virility, by restraining 
undne indulgence, and ensuring procreation only at a specially 
healthy period. We need hardly pause to dwell on the enormdua 
advantages such a etari; in the battle of life must give towards 
the " Hurvival of the fittest.'' 

The special bioatatie privileges of Jews might be summed up in 
the proved facta that they married less, had fewer births, died less 
(that is, lived longer), increased at a greater rate, and had fewer 
stillborn and illegitimate children than any ofher race. It was 
quite nnnec«ssary to repeat the statistics upon these points : they 
had been given over and over again, as by Hofiiiiann, Kolb, 
Bergmann, Legoyt, Bemouilli, Lagneau, Loeb, and many others ; 
but it was interesting, and to the Jews vitally instructive, to note 
that in proportion as they mixed with other races — either of their 
own accord or by the spread of social tolerance — they lost these 
biostatic privileges, and the differences became effaced. Thus 
M, de Bergmaun (" Beitrage znr Geschichte der Bevolkerung in 
Dentschlaud ") showed that the relation of the sexes among the 
Jews in Posen had of late become much modified : that while from 
1819 to 1864 it was as lll'94boysto 100 girls, it fell to 10Cv39 to 
100 from 1864 to 1873; similarly, the proportion of illegitimate 
births among them had increased, showing a relaxation in their 
adherence to the Mosaic code. In every one of the biostatic 
privileges they enjoyed, the penalty had to be paid for laxity of 
observances, and eitterin their own persons op in their deseendantfl 
those who transgressed had to submit to the inexorable law of 
"being cutoff from their own people," as far as wos concerned 
in their share of the physical advantages of their race. 

Mr. P. D. MocA'iTA remarked that in addition to the two gi'eatsr 
divisions of the Jewish race, Sephardim (Spanish) and Ash- 
keiiftzim (German), not to mention the Italian Jews, thei-e were 
various other families of Jews, such as those of the interior of 
Morocco, speaking Arabic, aud not Spanish, those of Persia and of 
Yemen, and others. Besides these were large numbers of Jews in 
vai'ious counti-ies, who might he considered not to be of the seed of 


Abrabam, or only to be to a greater or lesser degree crossed witb 
it. Snch were the Beni-Israel of Bombay, those of Foo-Choo-Foo 
(now nearly obliterated), the Riff Jews of the north of Morocco (an 
armed warlike set, loosely adhering to Judaism, bnt differing in 
physique and habit from other Jews), the nearly black and crispy 
Malabar Jews, &c. Also the Jews of South-East Russia in Europe 
who speak Russian, and are a well-developed, hardy, and generally 
ruddy race, are probably a different family from those of Poland and 
Central Russia, who stCQ speak a dialect of Grerman, their ancestors 
haTing been driven out of Germany at the period of the Crusades. 
This family might possibly represent, as the Karaites of the 
Crimea were often supposed to do, the descendants of the Khozars, 
a tribe on the Caspian, who about the seventh century founded a 
state and maintained it for the best part of two centuries, adopting 
the Jewish religion. All these, so to speak, outlying families of 
Jews might be regarded as descendants of proselytes, but as they 
had blended but very little with the general mass of the Jews, 
they did not uiuch affect the subject then under consideration. 
In Biblical times the Jews frequently made matrimonial alliance 
with the surrounding populations, and it was a constant theme of 
the reproach of prophets and reformers, notably of Bzra and 
Nehemiah. Later on, at the time of the conquest of Titus, and 
when Christianity was only dawniug on the Latin world, many Jews 
were carried to Rome, the bulk being the common people, who 
were put to labour on public works, and often devoured at 
gladiatorial shows ; but some of whom being scholars and persons 
of refinement were admitted into Roman society, and by the 
puriiy of their doctrine won over to their philosophy and religion 
many of the higher classes, notably women, who were becoming 
tired of the superstitions and worldliness into which the pagan re- 
ligions had degenerated. This probably led to alliances, and such 
is M. Renan's opinion. The Jews also, ever prone to adopt the habits 
and manners of surrounding nations, became lax, Romanised and 
Hellenised their names, as was evidenced in the Jewish catacombs at 
Rome, and probably contracted marriages with the people around 
them. All these sources might have led to an admixture of non- 
Jewish blood, the extent of such admixture (the alliances being at 
all times exceptional rather than general, and having become rarer 
with the persecutions which set in in the earKer ages of the Christian 
Church) was not likely to have essentially modified either the type 
or the physical or moml characteristics of the Jewish race, which 
might therefore be regarded for all practical purposes as pure. 
This was all the more probable since a large number of the issues 
of such mixed alliances naturally fell back to the dominant 
religions of the various times and countries, and ceased to have 
anything to do with Judaism. The speaker said he had not 
alluded to alliances made between Jews and Oriental peoples, 
Mohammedans, &c., in earlier times, firstly because it would be 
difficult to prove their frequency or the contrary, 4hd secondly, 
because these peoples, being for the most part Semitic themselves, 
ihe ohangea thus induced would have been far less accentuated. 

Sir Joseph Fatbeb had no criticisms to make on the erudite 
papers wiiich hud been road that evoning, but wonld ask one or 
two questions, first remarking that he had known Jews in 
Calcutta where one member of the family had light hair and grey 
eyes, another dark hair and complexion. It etrnck him that the 
Armenians presented those pecaliar characteristics of physiognomy 
which were uHaally attributed to the Jew. Was this not simply a 
question of race, both being Semitic, and should not the so-called 
Jewish physiognomy rather be called Semitic than be regarded aa 
the special attribute of the Hebrew as distinct from other Semitic 
races such as the Ai-meuian P The speaker would ask the leaiiied 
author of the second paper (Mr. Jacobs) if he could give any 
information as to the relation of the Afghans to the Jews ? They 
undoubtedly had the physiognomy strongly marked, — it was often 
said they were descendants of the lost tribes, and there was a tribe 
among them calling themselves Beni-Israel. What was kDOWn 
and accepted among erudite Jews as to the origin o£ the Afghans ? 
Again, what was the origin of the race of Black Jews on the 
Malabar coast P Were these not a mixed race, and were they not 
the result of admixture with the Teluigan races of Southern India ? 
Pure as the Jewish race is, it would seem that it most bo recognised 
that evidences of such admixture with other races did exist, and it 
would also seem that they had taken moi-e or less ai 
from their surroundings and from the character of the 
which they had settled. 

Mr. Ldcikn Wolf did not agree with Mr. Jacobs' view of the 
physiological characteristics of Jews. Mr. Jacobs pi-actically 
denied the exiHtence of these characteristics, whereas the speaker 
felt inclined not only to assert their existence, bat to assert that 
they were as well defined as to form i-cal race distinctions. This 
view could be proved by statistics, and figures could also be given 
to prove the immunity of Jews from phthisis, which Mr. Jacobs 
contested. The purity of the race could not be demousti'ated by 
anthropological measurements, for, physically, Jews varied enor- 
mously. It was different with their vital characteristics, and 
while we found that these were maintained at a high average we 
might rest assured that the race was being conserved. The 
evidence brought forward by Dr. Neubauer in favour of his view 
that the Jewish race had not kept itself pure told against the 
proposition it was intended to support when it was tested by other 
evidence. Thus it might be asked bow was it that, notwithstanding 
these large accessions to Judaism, the race had not increased, and 
that in spite of these lai'ge infusions of alien blood, so important 
a vital characteristic as its higb reproductive power has not 
become modi&ed. It muat be obvious that had the remarkable 
multiplying power of the Jews been left unchecked they must 
have increased far beyond their present numbers, and if they could 
lessions from other races without diminishing this power, 
1 by this time they ought to have peopled the woi'ld. The ^ 
eloBion must be then that the mi.^ed marriages referred to hat 


not affected the purity of the race. By their tendency to sterility 
they have periodically carried off the perpetually growing fringe 
of Judaism, leaving always a pure nucleus to repropagate itself. 
Thus by bringing to light the fact that mixed marriages were 
generally sterile, the evidence cited by Dr. Nenbauer, instead of 
telling against the purity of the Jewish race, revealed the most 
powerful argument in its favour. Nor was this theory of sterility 
a theory only. The speaker had investigated a large number of 
cases of mixed marriages — not quite so many as Mr. Jacobs — and 
in every single case he had found, if not absolute sterility, at least 
a falling off in the vital power of the offspring, placing them far 
below the average obtaining in the Jewish community. This 
ialling off was only postponed sterility, as he had had occasion to 
prove himself by investigating the history through several 
generations of a few mixed marriages. 

Mr. Marcus N. Adler said that in his capacity as Actuary he 
had had opportunities of examining various statistics bearing on 
the subject under discussion. He agreed with Mr. Jacobs' remark 
that in the case of Jews mixed marriages were not so productive as 
oniiaary marriages. On this point Herr yon Fircks had published 
some interesting statistics in the ofi&cial Journal of the Statistical 
Bureau of Prussia, and a good deal of weight must be attached 
to these figures, inasmuch as the entire population of Prussia is 
compared with the Jewish population, which exceeds 300,000. 
] t would appear, dealing with the averages from the year 1876 to 
the year 1881, that out of 100 marriages — 
Where both parents were Protestants there were 430 children. 

» » 99 

„ Roman Catholics 

„ 520 „ 

» 441 „ 

„ 325 „ 

131 „ 

» J.W ,y 


„ „ „ „ Jews 

„ one of the parents was a Protestant 
and the other Roman Catholic 

„ one of the parents was Christian and 
the other Jewish 

„ the father was a Jew and the mother 
a Protestant 
If we bore in mind that out of the number bom not one-half 
attained marriageable age, and a still less number actually married, 
it followed that the descendants of mixed marriages were com- 
paratively few, and this consideration became an important 
elemei\t in the argument as to the comparative purity of the 
Jewish race at the present day. With regard to insanity, there 
was little doubt but that it was more prevalent amongst Jews 
than among the Christian population. M. Legoyt published some 
statistics which would show that while one person was insane 
oat of every 1,200 Protestants, and one person insane out of 
every 1,000 Roman Catholics, amongst the Jews one person was 
hmane out of every 760. It would not do to ascribe this to 
marriages amongst near relations being rather frequent amongst 
Tews, tor if so, why should there be a larger number of insane 
no^gst Roman Catholics than amongst Protestants, seeing 

thai amongst the Kdihehi Catholics marriages between < 
ape prohibited P Moreover, Mr. G-eorge Darwin, in an iniereating 
article which appeared in the FoHrtightly Bemmo in 1875, showed 
that insanity is not more prevalent in the offspring of marriages 
of consins than in the offspring of other marriages. It wan, 
however, found thai persons living in towns were more anhjeitt 
to insanity than those living in the open coantry, and since 
the Jews mostly inhabit towns, the speaker was disposed to 
ascribe the more numei«ns caaes of insanity among the Jews to 
the fact of their living amoog densely popalated districts, also to 
their being more addicted to head work than to mannal labour, and 
to many of tbem being of rather a nervous temperament. 

Dr. AsHEB believed that the figures supplied by Mr. Joseph 
' Jacobs as to the prevalence of phthisis among Jews were entirely 
fallactotis. Jews had an extraordinary power of tesistanoe to 
phthisis, but when exposed for sufficient time to all those 
BUiToundings which lower vitality beyond the limits which their 
constitations could bear, they necessarily succumb, but they 
endured and resisted far far beyond what would kill those not of 
their race. From an experience of sevei-al years as snrgeoa to the 
Jewish Board of Guardians, the speaker was enabled to say that 
phtliiais among English Jews was almost unknown : the vast 
majority of those who died from tuberculosis were Russians or 
Poles, who in their own countries had been herded together nnder 
the most insanitary conditions. It was no more fair to accuse 
Jews of special liability to tuberculosis on account of those deaths 
than it would be to say that Brompton is a district specially 
liable to that disease because thei-e were so many deaths therefrom 
in the hospitals with which the district abounded. Figures and 
facts Buhstantiating the above would be found in the report for 
1859 of Dr. Septimus Gibbon, Medical Officer of Health. 

Mr. Joseph Jacobs, in reply, expressed his regret at the absence 
of Dr. Neubauer, which had deprived the meeting of his valuable 
criticism, though it had doubtless freed himself from a formidable 
opponent. He was under the impression that the translation " red- 
haired" in 1 Sam. xvi, 12, was mistaken, and that the woiii 
edmotii simply implied " mddy," which might apply to a dark as 
to a fair complexion. He had only refen-ed to the mistranslation 
of the Targum as showing that Jews of the sixth century i.e. saw 
no objection to a Jewish king being red-haired. There was no 
special Jewish theory of the origin of the Afghans. They shared 
with many other races of uncertain oiigin the doubtful honour of 
being connected with the Ten Tribes about whom so many wild 
theories had been broached. This was possible; or their Semitic 
appearance might be due to descent from the tribes of North Arabiii 
or Mesopotamia. The Black Jews of Malabar were known to be 
proselytes of the White Jews who had arrived there. Mr. Wolf's 
remarks seemed to him to overlook the great complexity of the 
problems dealing with the origin of the biostatic and physical 
eharactei'istics of the Jews. These might be doe either to common 


Tace or to common cnstoms, and lie was inclined to attribate them 
mainly to the latter. He had not denied their existence, indeed 
he hoped he had exhibited them with a larger body of evidence 
than had hitherto been coUected. Bnt he doubted whether they 
conld be adduced to prove the pnrity of the Jewish race, which 
was the immediate question before them. There was no evidence 
to prove that the Jews in mediseval times had increased with the 
rapidity they are doing at present, and in any case their increase 
wonld be mnch checked by their persecutions which had carried off, 
he had calculated, over 382,000 victims. As regards phthisis, 
notwithstanding the remarks that had fallen from the medical 
gentlemen present, he could not ascertain any definite facts proving 
that Jews possess any racial immunity from the disease, though 
he had not " accused " them of any special liability to it. As Dr. 
Asher had owned, Jews were sometimes more and sometimes less 
afflicted by tubercle than their neighbours, showing that environ- 
ment had most to do with their liability to consumption. In 
conclusion, he expressed a desire to hear the opinion of trained 
anthropologists on the main question. If Hght hair and eyes 
amidst a race generally dai^ necessarily proved intermixture, then 
one-fifth of contemporary Jews afforded that proof, though he had 
shown that these existed at a very early date. But if not, he saw 
no reason from history for denying that the Jews of the present 
day were the direct descendants of the Jews of the Bible. 

Note by Mr, F, Galton. 

The individual photographs were taken with hardly any selection 
from among the boys in the Jews' Free School, Bell Laue. They 
were the children of poor parents. As I drove to the school 
through the adjacent Jewish quarter, the expression of the people 
that most struck me was their cold, scanning gaze, and this was 
equally characteristic of the schoolboys. 

The composites were made with a camera that had numerous 
adjustments for varying the position and scale of the individual 
portraits with reference to fixed fiducial lines; but, beautiful as 
those adjustments are, if I were to begin entirely afresh, I should 
discard them, and should proceed in quite a different way. This 
cannot be described intelligibly and at the same time briefly, but 
it is explained with sufficient fulness in the Photographic News, 
1885, p. 244. 

Morrison and Sons, Printers in Ordinary to Her Majesty, St. Martinis Lane. 


Distribution of Ability 




MXA Paper read before the Anthropological Ingtitute, Nanetaler VUlh, 1 

[With Plaib XT.] 

Is a previous communication to this Institute* I laid before it all 
the information I could collect as to the racial characteristics of 
modem Jews, their vital statistics, and bodily measurements. 
At the same time I expressed my belief that it would be possible 
to estimate with some degree of precision their intellectual 
ability as compared with that of other Europeans, and I promised 
to give this comparison on some future occasion. I sliall 
endeavour to redeem that promise in the following pages. In 
doing so I find myself in face of two difficulties. The first waa 
to discover a method of measuring ability. The heights of Jews 
can be calculated easily enough, their vital statistics need only 
to be collected from the bureaux of Europe. But who shall 
measure a man's mind so as to compare it with that of others ? 
It was necessary to find some method that would give definite 

' Parts of this paper were read before tbe Aberdeen Meeting of the Brilisli 
" Joum. Antbrop. Inst.," August., 18SS. 

xlii J. Jacobs. — The Comparative 

results and should have at the same time some claims to 
scientific accuracy and trustworthiness. Fortunately for me 
such a method has been before the world for the last sixteen 
years in Mr. Galton's " Hereditary Genius," and what I shall do 
in this investigation is only to apply to Jews the same line of 
argument that he applied to Englishmen in that well-known book. 
But having found my method, there still remains the second 
difficulty of explaining it in such a way that it will not be too 
wearisomely arithmetical. Eoughly speaking, the method con- 
sists in finding how many eminent men of certain rank exist 
in each million of Englishmen and of Jews. To do this it is 
impossible to avoid numerical details, and I fear I must force 
the reader to pass some time in the uncongenial company of the 
Eule of Three. Luckily, however, the method likewise admits 
of being exhibited in a graphic fonn, and I hope to render it 
intelligible by means of a couple of diagrams, and by drawing 
upon the reader's imagination to make two tolerably simple 

The first is this. Suppose we ordered a tailor to cut out a 
piece of cloth under the conditions that it should be — (1) of fixed 
breadth ; (2) contain a fixed area ; (3) be symmetrical about a 
central axis ; and (4) have no indentations in it. He would soon 
find that the first snip of the scissors would determine the shape 
of the cloth. For if (as in the dotted lines of fig. 1, Plate XV) 
he began to cut within the pattern curve he would have to bring 
the outline outside it, in order to make up the given area, and if lie 
began outside it he would have to bring the apex within for the 
same reason. Bearing this sartorial experience in mind we may 
turn to our second stretch of imagination. I have said that our 
method consists in estimating the number of eminent men among 
a million Englishmen or Jews, as the case may be. Suppose that 
we had these million men collected together on Salisbury Plain, 
and suppose further that we were gifted with the insight of a 
recording angel and could arrange them in sixteen classes 
according to their ability, ranging from the greatest genius 
among them to the most degraded idiot. A long wall with 
fifteen projecting walls perpendicular to it would give us, as 
it were, sixteen pens, in wliich we could place our various 
classes. It is obvious that the central or mediocre classes would 
contain far more than the extremes : geniuses and, luckily too, 
idiots are far more rare than mediocrities. As a matter of fact, 
on the hypothesis here employed of the distribution of ability 
according to the law of deviation from the average, the two 
central classes would stretch out a broad mass of humanity 
neai'ly twice as long as the base line. If now we built a wail 
round our million men thus classified this would describe a curve 

DidribiUion of Jewish Ability. xliii 

resembling in shape a section of a penny trumpet.' But thia 
curve 13 oE the same kind as we previously requested our tailor 
to eut out for us ; it is of fixed breadth, symmetrical round the 
central axis, of fixed area, that filled by a million men, and it 
has no indentations, for there cannot be alarger number of men 
in a class more remote from mediocrity than in one nearer. But 
if this ia so, we know from our former supposition that after a 
email portion of the boundary wall at the extremity had been 
built the shape of the remainder would be determined, so that 
all that would be necessary would be to iind the number of men 
forming the first tln'ee or four classes and build tlie wall enclos- 
ing them. Mr. Galton built that wall for Englishmen, if I may 
say BO, in his book " Hereditary Genius," and I have endeavoured 
to do the same for Jews and incidentally for Scotchmen, with 
results roughly indicated in fig. 2. This has been drawn out of 
scale at the extremities for the sake of clearness, and only givea 
approximately the true shape of the curve of distribution of 
ability on Mr. Gallon's hypothesis, that talent is distributed 
round an average mediocity like shots are distributed round the 
bnll'a-eye of a target (" Hereditary Genius," pp. 30-34).^ With 
this explanation I turn to the calculations, which enable us, 
however rouglily, to estimate the comparative distribution of 
ability among Englishmen, Scotchmen, and Jews, 

But first we must recall the estimate by which Mr. Galton 
was enabled to determine the distribution of English ability. 
As will be remembered, he estimated thatof every million English- 
men over fifty, 425 obtained sufficient reputation to earn them 
a place in Cooper's "Men of the Time," and of these 425 there 
would be 250 of equal or superior ability to that of an English 
judge. Assuming then that the exponential law of error applied 
to the distribution of talent he was enabled to subdivide these 
250 into three classes, equally removed from one another. The 
first class (termed Clasa X) was composed of only one individual, 
whose prominence may be conceived from the fact that only 9 of 
this class are living at one time in the United Kingdom, only 2 
among Englishmen over fifty. The next class, G, would include 
14 members in each million, or 111 of all ages in the British 
Isles, while the third class, F, would average 233 per million; so 
that these islands would have 1,863 individuals of tins class, but 
only 468 over fifty, before which age, as a rule, men do not 
obtain fame. These results, while enabling us to render more 

' The weU-tnown exponential curre {y— -j~) whioh eipraaBei geDmetricallj 
Ihe low of deTiation from the average. Cf, Quetelot, "Lettani on Probabilitiea j '' 
Venn, " Logic of Chance." 

' For eipUnation of Pliite see p. liviii. 

xliv J. Jacobs. — 7^ Comparative 

precise what we mean by the terms " genius," " talent," and the 
like, may also be utilised to compare the abilities of different 
nations or races, and I propose to ascertain how many X's, G's, 
and F's, illustrious, eminent, and distinguished men, there have 
been per million among those Jews who have reached the age 
of fifty between 1785 and 1885, and by this means to obtain an 
estimate of Jewish ability as compared with British. It is right 
to mention that Mr. Galton is nowadays of opinion that we 
cannot rely upon the absolute accuracy of his results, owing to 
the variations at the end of a scale ranged according to the law 
of error.^ But while this affects the absolute accuracy of his 
results it need not render a comparative estimate altogether 
valueless. If I take a metre rod in my hand, thinking it to be 
a yard measure, all the measurements I take will be too short by 
an inch in every foot. But if I wish to know whether one log 
is twice as long as another my metre rod will serve me as well 
for this purpose as if I were using the bronze bar that gives the 
standard yard for all England. 

We have first to ascertain how many Jews have reached fifty 
in the century just past. Two methods suggest themselves. 
Taking the Jewish population of Europe at intervals of a gene- 
ration in the years 1880, 1850, 1820, and 1790, it can be estimated 
that a little over 16,000,000 were living at these various epochs. 
One-fifteenth of these, or 1,040,000, would be males over fifty, 
and about half that number would have reached fifty and died in 
the intervals. Or we may calculate the Jewish births between 
1735 and 1835 at about 6,400,000, and of these nine-twentieths, 
3,160,000, would reach the age of fifty, or almost exactly a million 
and a half males.^ The concurrence of the two methods gives 
us some confidence in saying that, in the past centurj^ a million 
and a half Jews have reached the age of fifty. If Jewish intellect 
is equal to the English standard, we should expect to find in 
dictionaries of biography 1 illustrious Jew, 21 eminent ones, and 
350 distinguished men of Jewish blood. 

How many can we find ? For the purpose of this comparison 
we must keep rigidly to names which have been considered 
worthy of insertion by the compilers of biographical dictionaries. 

^ The precariousness of the method consists in — (1) the doubt whether the 
base is fixed in length and so the classes equaUy removed : thi:», however, does 
not affect the comparison so long as it is kept to one standard ; (2) doubt as to 
the symmetry of the curve : on this some evidence will be ofPered later on ; 
(3) difficulty of trusting results at the end of a curve where accidental causes 
tend to disturb the law-abiding quality. Against the last may be urged that 
such inequalities are apt to disappear when such large numbers as a million 
are concerned. Appendix II offers an empirical justification for the method. 

' It was estimated that the Jewish population in 1735 was 1,300,000, and in 
1833 8,500,000. The geometric mean of these was taken as approximately 
2,000,000, and a birth-rate of 32 reckoned on this for 100 years. 

DistrHution of Jewish AMlUy. xlv 

Ab Jews live all over Europe it would not be fair to confine 
ourselves to " Men of the Time," and I have accordingly seai'clied 
Yapereau for France, De Gubernatis for Italy, and Bommiiller 
for Germany, tliough the latter two contain only literary celeb- 
rities. For persons distinguished in other careers, and for those 
Jews who died before dictionaries of contemporary biography 
came into vogue, I have consulted other eompUations of about 
the same standing. There must be many omissions in looking 
through such extended lists where the creed is generally not 
mentioned, but I have, notwithstandijig, succeeded in collecting 
from them 335 names of Jews distinguished in all branches of 
human activity (see Appendix I). 

Not all of these 335 deserve to rank sa distingmshed in the 
more technical and restricted sense of the term as used in Mr. 
Galton's investigations. Of the 425 who in each million of 
Enghshmen obtained a place in the dictionaries, 175, or 41 per 
cent, were deemed by him unworthy of distinction. I have been 
even more rigorous *vith the 335 Jews, and have rejected 50 per 
cent., leaving only 169 distinguished. Now comes the ticMish 
task of " placing " these, as it were, in a tripos of all the talents, 
I think, however, few will quarrel with me if I venture to place 
in the first rank these four illustrious names : — 

Benjamin Diseaeli, Lord Beacossfield. 

Heinrich Heine, the gi'eatest German poet since Goethe, " the 
wittiest Frenchman since Voltaire," the most potent of the 
warriors in the intellectual War of Liberation which has freed 
European thought from its mediieval shackles. 

Fekdinand Lassalle, 

" wlioBe genius was snoh 
We ecarcely can praiae it or blame it too rauch," 

who, armed with all the culture of his time, became the darling 
leader of the German working classes, and is still remembered 
by them as " Messiah Lassalle," who was a jurist and an econo- 
mist of high rank, an orator of great power, a philosopher and 
& poet, and who made Socialism a force in European politics. 
Prince Bismarck has confessed that he learned Ins Socialism from 
Lassalle, and it was universally recognised that these two were 
the most influential men in Germany in 1863, the year in which 
Lassalle met his death in an ignoble duel at the early age of 
Feux Baetuoldy-Mendelssohn, one of the great musicians 

' Strictly ^ealinp, LasBalle slioiild not be counted, as lie did not reach the 
age of Ally. But 1 draw no (.'oneluaiou from tlie Urst c^ass alone, and it ia not 
of rourh coneequonce whotlior we reckon the first two classea as, 28 or 30, 
eipeciallj when we h&ro to double tJiem to make them applicable U> Westera 


xlvi J. Jacobs. — The Comparative 

of the world, who would deserve this place if only for having 
re-introduced Bach to us. I might perhaps have included his 
grandfather, Moses Mendelssohn, as the centenary of his death 
only occurs in 1886, but I should hesitate to class him as 
illustrious, and the difl&culty of decision is luckily removed by 
the fact that his birth took place in 1729, six years before the 
imit of our inquiry. 

Here, then, in the first class of intellect, where Jews ought 
to have been satisfied with one-and-a-half illustrious names, we 
find no less than four. In the second class, the "senior optimes" 
of our tripos, I place the following twenty-five: — Berthold 
Auerbach, Germany's greatest noveUst; Theodor Benfey, the 
greatest philologist in Germany, the home of philology ; L. Borne, 
second only to Heine in the struggle for Fi'eethought ; Cremieux, 
to whom the French nation recently decreed the honour of a 
national funeral ; E. Gans, the leader of the German school of 
law and history ; A. Geiger, the head of the Jewish Keform move- 
ment ; H. Graetz, the Jewish Macaulay, though I class him a 
rank lower than his English prototype ; L. Hal^vy, the musician ; 
Sir W. Herschell, the astronomer ; Jacobi, the mathematician, 
after whom the abstruse functions "Jacobians" receive their 
name; Sir George Jessel, late Master of the EoUs; Eduard 
^. usker, leader of the German National Liberal Party ; Solomon 
Maimon, whom Mr. S.Hodgson declares to be the greatest German 
metaphysician since Kant (possibly because Maimon anticipated 
his own position) : he was certainly a philosophical critic of the 
first rank ; Karl Marx, the literary founder of Socialism and 
" headcentre " of the International ; Meyerbeer, the musician ; 
Neander, the Christian theologian ; Jules Oppert, the greatest 
living assyriologist after Eawlinson ; Sir Francis Cohen Palgrave,^ 
the earliest of our scientific historians of England ; Kachel, the 
greatest actress of all time ; Kicardo, second only to Adam Smith 
in his influence on political economy ; Jules Simon, the French 
politician ; Steinthal and Lazarus, the twin leaders of modern 
philosophical philology; Professor Sylvester, co-founder with 
Professor Cayley of the modern higher algebra ; and two Jewish 
scholars, M. Steinschneider and Leopold Zunz, whose names 
are less known because they have given up to Judaism what 
was meant for mankind, but whose erudition is, I am confident, 
sufficient to place them in the high rank which is here assigned 
them.^ Here, then, in the second class, where we should expect 

I should not have reckoned Palgrave, but that Mr. G-alton has himself 
marked him in black type (of Q- class). " Hereditary Q-enius." 

* Many of these names will be unfamiliar to the reader. But if he reflects 
how unfamiliar the name of Sir G-. Jessel, undoubtedly a second class man, 
would sound in Germany or France, h^ will perhaps understand that it is 

Distrlluilon of Jewish Alility. xlvU 

14 eminent Jews to a million, we find as many as 25 to a 
iniUion and a balf, or 17 per million. In the first two classes, 
then, we have 29 illustrious and eminent names among a 
million and a half Jews, where we could only expect 22 or 23 of 
equal calibre among the same number of Englishmen, so that it 
might aeem that Jews have a quarter more great ones of intellect 
than Englishmen. 

But this flattering conclusion is rudely shattered when we 
turn to the thirtl class of intellect, where Englishpaen show 
233 names to 99 Jewish celebrities per million. Tnie I have 
rejected some 30 more names from this class than Mr. Galton 
would have dona True that these are just the names which 
would escape notice in a search through biogi-aphical dictionaries. 
But making all allowance for these sources of omission we could 
scarcely liope to biing up the number of distingidshed Jews to 
that of distinguished Englishmen, whereas if the conclusion we 
drew from our comparison of the first two classes were correct 
we should expect many more also in the class of Fa. There 
seems a discontinuity in the Jewish curve — indicated by the Sud- 
den droop in the dotted curve in Class F — which casts doubt on 
our whole method, and certainly traverses directly the favour- 
able conclusion we were first inclined to draw in favour of 
Jewish ability. The explanation, however, is tolerably obvious. 
Hitherto we have assumed that our million Englishmen and our 
million Jews started on equal terms in the race for fame, but 
we know of course that this is only true for the third of European 
Jews who dwell in the West of Europe. The two-thirds of Jews 
who dwell in IJussia and Eoumania are heavily handicapped, as 
were indeed the remainder up to very few years ago. If Russia 
contributed her proper proportion to the 335 Jews on my list, 
there would be 200 Eu.ssian Jews upon it. Instead of that, there 
are only eight, four of whom liave left their stepmother-country 
and sought a career out of Russia, and of the remaining four, two 
had to forswear their faith before gaining a reputation, and of 
the other two, one, Anton Rubinstein, has gained tlie world's ear 
by the cosmopolitan art of mu&ic, and the other is of fourth class 
rank in the Jewish speciality of Hebrew. If Russia had not 

poisible far some of tlie German and Frencli celebrities mentioned in the list 
lo be JeaaolB. Far eotne of tbem I bttTe the authority of Mr. Gftllon'i book 
for putting; them in the secand claas, iind for the most obscure I oould quote 
parallel (sppurenl) obKuritiea from " Hereditarr Genius," e,y., GrynojuB, Cassini, 
Alieria, BuESek, Porta, Celaiua, nho are all riehtl; enough put in the aecond 
clua. IE it is not exactly true that the world knows nolhing of its greatent 
awn, it ia certain that it knowa nothing of the second class men who \ 
the waj for the greatest. Tliese remarks apply with still greater force 
list contained in Appendii I, and I haye therefore been moat rigoroua 
confining it to the namea of those who have been eeleoted by eiperta 
eelBbrity to be included in the dictiouariec of biograpbj. 

xlviii J. Jacobs.— :Z%e Comparative 


persecuted her Hebrews, and if Eussian Jews are of equal calibre 
to the rest of their brethren, she might have reckoned. on 8 men 
of the rank of Beaconsfield or Heine, 44 of the capacity of Sir 
George Jessel or Professor Sylvester, and 278 of ability equal to 
that of an English judge. Thus we seem to have been unfair in 
assuming that a million and a half Jews have lived to fifty in the 
past century : only a little more than half a million can be said 
to have lived, the rest have but existed and have been out of the 
running in the race for fame. If we take this into consideration, 
and compare Englishmen with Western Jews only, the first two 
classes show nearly three times as many as the same number 
of Englishmen, and the third class, which seemed so poverty- 
stricken, shows a quarter more names than half a million 
Englishmen could show. Even here there is discrepancy, and 
we still have to account for comparative paucity in the third class. 
Now this is just the class which is likely to be kept down by 
moderate persecution such as there has been in Western Europe. 
It would take Eussian rigour to repress a Lassalle or a Beacons- 
field, a Cremieux or a Lasker. But much less pressure would be 
sufficient to bar a would-be savant from becoming a Professor or 
perhaps a savant at all. And looking through our list we find 
plenty of evidence of the effects of such persecution. It must 
have been observed that three out of our four illustrious ones were 
only Jews by race, not by creed, and of our 22 G's nine have 
been baptised, and in all, 52 of our list have become Christians, 
more than one-tenth. Without prying into motives it is notorious, 
in cases like those of Beaconsfield, Heine, Borne, Gans, Eicardo, 
that conversion was adopted as the only means of obtaining the 
carridre ouverte. Of the 52 we find 28 bom before 1810 and liv- 
ing their life before the year of freedom 1848, whereas of our list 
114 only were born before 1810, 213 afterwards. The converts 
thus formed a quarter of those flourishing before 1848, and 
only a tenth of those afterwards. Similarly in Austria during 
the days when persecution equal to that of Eussia prevailed we 
have only 5 celebrities born before 1810, no less than four of 
whom gained fame elsewhere, against 27 born in 1810-50. 
Another sign of persecution is the migratory habits of able Jews, 
for, as Mr. Galton has remarked, when a career is open to them 
able men are the last to leave their country. The Heine family 
form a typical group. The poet is buried in Pfere la Chaise ; 
one of his brothers became Eitter von Geldern at Vienna, another 
was Court Physician at St. Petersburg ; his sister married and 
became Princess della Eocca in Italy ; while old Solomon Heine, 
theit uncle, was the only one who remained faithful both to his 
creed and his country. In all 67 of my list, exactly one-fifth 
found fame in countries other than that of their birth, England 

Sistrihution of Jewish Ability. 


gaining as many as 30, and France 24 men of ability as a reward 
for their liberality. We could almost test the amount of perse- 
cution by the percentage of each country's loss, Eussia coming 
first with 50 per cent., then Austria with 37, Germany 30, Italy 
12, France 2, while England has not lost a single able Jew, but 
has gained as many as ehe herself produced.' With this evidence 
of persecution even iu Western Europe we can explain the paucity 
of third class Jews, and may conjecture that but for this we 
should have nearly as many more third class as we have in the 
first two, who include a treble share. On the whole, then, with 
these corrections we may say that there is about twice aa much 
chance of findiug a distinguished man among Western Jews as 
among Englishmen, 

Thinking that it would be desirable to apply the same method 
to another race, I have selected Scotchmen as a likely test of 
the validity of our method. I went through Irving's " Book of 
Eminent Scotchmen," aud selected out of the 3,000 names those 
who seemed to me to have reached first and second rank during 
the past century, I also estimated the number of Scotchmen 
who reached fifty years in that period, and found this to be 
960,000, or almost exactly a million. If their ability were the 
same as Englishmen, they should have one first class and 
fourteen second class. Instead of this I calculate that four 
Scotchmen — Carlyle, Gladstone, Macaulay,* and Scott — ^had 
readied first class rank (we might say 4^ if we reckon Byron, 
who was Scotch on his mother's side), and 20 G's — Sir C. Bell, 
Sir D. Brewster, Lord Brougham, Bums, Lord Campbell, Erskine, 
David Forbes, General Gordon, Sir W. Hamilton, Sir James 
Ivory, Lord Jeffrey, U. Livingstone, Sir Chas. Lyell, J. Clark 
Maxwell, James Mill, J. S. Mill, H. A, J. Munro, Sir C. Napier, 
Sir W. Thomson, James Watt. This would give Scotchmen a 




















































United States. , 







From tliis it nouU »eem that England, Froitci!, nod Italy hare produced tlis 
largest number of Jewisli celebrities in propurtion lo their numbers. 

'1 reckon Moeaulaj first cIbbs not only on account of his jitorarj productii 
though these are too much underrated nonHdajB, but bceauu of liis proi 
abililiec lu adiniiiistriitor, orator, uid GonTersatioualiBt. 

1 J. Jacobs. — Tlie Comparative 

position superior to that of Jews in general, including those 
of Eussia, but intennediate between Englishmen and Jews of 
Western Europe. 

This result uiiiy be checked by an application of our method, 
which leads to the most startling and curious results of our 
investigation. In assuming our curve of the distribution of 
ability to be symmetrical, we have opened the way to estimating 
the excess of ability by calculating its deficit There should be 
as many in each class below the average as above. Now in 
several special instances this is true for Jews. The curve serves 
to distribute musical or linguistic ability as well as general 
ability. If Jews have, as we shall see they have, more musicians 
and philologists at the top of the scale, they should have more 
deaf-mutes at the lower end of it ; we know they have. And 
the method cuts both ways. Jews are justly proud of having 
less criminals than their neighbours. But that would imply 
that they have less moral enthusiasts at the top of the moral 
scale, and more proportionally of average morality, or in other 
words more worldly persons: that does not seem opposed to 
facts.^ So too, turning again to general ability, if Englishmen, 
Scotchmen, and Jews are in this order as regards intellect, they 
should retain the same order as regards want of intellect. This 
is so, for while Englishmen have 3,050 per million afflicted with 
mental disease, Scotchmen have 3,400, and Jews 3,900.* The 
same numbers ought to give the proportion of eminent men of 
the first four classes, X-D, among the three races. This result 
of our method was a surprise to myself, and I was deterred 
fi'om using it by finding that the United States has the smallest 
proportion of lunatics among civilised states. But instead of 
disproving our position we have here a remarkable confirmation 
of it. For the United States have not produced a single man of 
the first class, except Washington and perhaps Emerson, in the 
last century. A further confirmation of this curious fact is to 
be seen in the pamllelism of high ability and high lunacy rate 
in the Protestant states of Europe as compared with the Catholic' 

^ Otlier iUustralions maybe addaced, which seem to bear out this law in 
the case of Jews as comp)red with others. Thus they have the reputat ion of 
being both more charitable and more mean than their neighbours ; of baying 
more superstitious persons and move sceptics ; they certainly have both more 
rich and more poor. Thus their curves of altruism, of faith and of acquisitive- 
ness, seem to conform to the law. 

2 I take the lunacv rate of England and Scotland from Oettingen, " Moral- 
statistik," Anhang "fafel XCIV ; that of Jews from those of Prussia in " Zeits. 
Preuss. Stat.," 1882, p. 190. These numbers rather exceed those contained in the 
four extreme classes, as is indicated in fig. 2, by placing the boundary line within 
the fifth class from the bottom. 

^ It might seem that all progress is impossible if any increase at the top of 
the scale is counterbalanced by a deficit on the other hand. Bat true progress 

Distribution of Jewish Ability, li 

I is not the only piece of instruction we receive from the 
mparative lunacy rate of the three races we are comparing, 
res tliemselves have enahled me to interpolate the 
mbera in the various classes, and to ascertain with some 
t of accuracy the nuraher of men of only average ability 
"kmong them, aa in the table attached to Plate XV. There are, 
according to Mr. Galton, 256,000 of the mediocre claas A among 
a million Englishmen ; I reckon by a process of interpolation 
that there are only 239,000 among Scotchmen, and 222,000 
among Jews. It follows that reckoning from the bottom of the 
scale the 722,000th Jew is equal ia ability to the 739,000th 
Scotchman and the 756,000tli Englishman. Or in other words, 
if we took a hundred men at hazard from each of the three 
races, the 72nd Jew, reckoned from the least able, would equal 
in ability the 74th Scotchman or the 76th Englishman, and 
would be superior in ability to the 72nd of either of the other 
two races^ (iig. 3). Thus we arrive at last at a real comparative 
estimate of Jewish ability, which we may state roughly in the 
following way. The average Jew has 4 per cent, more ability 
than the average Englishman, and 2 per cent, more than the 
average Scotchman. I do not lay very much stress on the 
accuracy of this result; a Scotch investigator on the same 
method might possibly invert the order. But I feel some 
confidence in the method, and consider that by its means we 
may one day be enabled to .judge the relative ability of various 
nations and races. (See Appendix II.) 

However satisfactory this result may be to all concerned, we 
cannot close the inquiry before ascertaining the comparative 
distribution of Jewish ability among the different branches of 
human activity. If Jews got into the reference books only for 
acting, or for chess-playing, or for proficiency in Hebrew, we 
could not draw any such conclusions as that just mentioned. 
We must see in what brandies Jews show most ability: we 
must examine their quality as well as their quantity. But 
before doing so we may gather up a few collateral results of 
interest. We have already mentioned and explained the large 
number of baptised Jews in the list. Equally striking is the 
comparatively large number of Jewesses, no less than thirteen, 
figuring there as actresses, writers, or leaders of salons. At the 
beginning of this century almost all the chief salons of Berlin 
were presided over by Jewesses — e.g., Dorothea Mendelssobn- 

conirista in raiaing the urorttge, elcTatinK Class k into Class B, fmni which mora 
at thEi top of the scale Hud less at the battom fallovr insTitabl}'. We 
" ihift tho origin," as the nintheiiiatlpians say. 

' Tlira is an Hpphcation oi Mr. Qaltoa's method of percentiles eiplained iav 
" Joum. Anthrop. Inst.," vol. ii». 

lii J. Jacobs. — The Comparative 

Schlegel, Rahel van Ense, Henriette Herz. The best known 
English salon of recent date was also attracted round a Jewess, 
Countess Waldegrave. For their numbers, too, the Sephardic or 
Spanish Jews make a goodly show with twelve celebrities 
instead of three, which would be a proper proportion : to them 
belong the two Disraelis, Basevi the architect of the Fitzwilliam 
Museum, Cambridge, Sir Moses Montefiore, and David Eicardo. 
But most striking of all is the large number of men of half- 
Jewish blood.^ I have included twenty of these in the list, 
though all but two, Franzos and Salvador, were brought up as 
Christians, but they have come under Jewish influence both by 
heredity and from their relations. It may be of interest to 
enumerate them : Edwin Booth the actor, H. J. Byron, of " Our 
Boys " celebrity, F. Delitzsch, G. Ebers, the Egyptologist and 
novelist, Ludovic Hal^vy, Paul Heyse, Sir John Herschell, Paul 
Lindau and his brother, Bemal Osborne, Francis Turner Palgrave 
the critic, W. Gifford Palgrave the traveller, Prevost-Paradol, 
Jules Simon, Sir Arthur Sullivan, and Sir H. Drummond Wolff. 
Altogether 5 per cent, of the whole, and yet mixed marriages are 
not anjrthing like so numerous as that, and as most of my 
examples are English I have probably missed a large number 
abroad. I have not included remoter descent, as we can scarcely 
term them Jews in any sense of the word. Besides, I could 
only find five examples, of whom the eminent Sir John Millais 
is one, though where his Jewish blood came in I am unable to 
ascertain. The paucity of later generations of Jewish inter- 
mixture may be due to difficulties in tracing them, or, as I am 
inclined to suspect, to the infertility of mixed marriages. 

Leaving these subsidiary results, let us turn to the distrihution 
of Jewish talent. Here, fortunately, I am still able to compare 
with Mr. Galton's results, as he gave in his book (p. 8 7t) a rough 
analysis of the specialities of the men of the time in Europe 
generally, and not alone in England. Eeducing these to " per- 
millages " (proportion per thousand celebrities), and doing the 
same with my own results, I obtain the following table : — 

* Mp. Grant AUen has already made the same ohservation. " The list that 
can be compiled of distinguished persons of half- Jewish blood is something simply 
extraordinary, especially when one remembers the comparatively small simi-'total 
of such int0rmarriage8 " (**Mind,'* vol. riii, p. 504-5). 

Distribuiion of Jewish Ability. 



















Natural Scionoe . . 



Artieb .. 



Naval .. 


Authors .. 





Dirinas .. 



[Poets" .. 



Engine™.. .. 



Political Economy 




Science .. .. 



L^^eT;: ;: 



Sculptors. . 



MedWs .. 










Military .. 






• Already inoiudeil in Aalhors. 
We cannot assume from this list that all cases where Jaws 
have a higher " peraiillage " they produce more experts per 
million in that branch ; it merely implies that of those who do 
obtain distinction a larger proportion obtain it in the particular 
study. In short, the table gives a comparative estimate of 
English, or rather Eitropean, and Jewish interest in particular 
studies, and thus only indirectly of their respective capacity. 
With this proviso we may sura up as follows. Jews have no 
distinction whatever as agricultutiats, engravers, sailors, and 
eoverejgns. They are less distinguished than Europeans 
generally as authors, divines, engineers, soldiers, statesmen, 
travellers. The two lists are approximately equal in antiquaries, 
architects, artists, lawyers, natural science, political economy, 
science, sculptors. Jews seem to have superiority as actors, 
ohess-playera, doctors, merchants (chiefly financiers), in meta- 
physics, music, poetry, and philology. Ou the whole, these results 
correspond with the rough inductions of common experience. I 
3hould,however,haveexpecteda much larger contingent of lawyers 
and political economists among Jews than among les autres, and 
I am surprised to find Art so equally represented. I have only 
one artist on my Ust who reaches even third class rank, Josef 
Israels, for of course I do not reckon Sir John Millais on the 
strength of a few Jewish corpuscles in his veins. Most persona 
will be equally surprised to observe equality in science, both in 
what Mr, Galton calls natm-al science and in science pure and 
simple, chiefly mathematical. Aa regards the former, of course 
Jews have no Darwin, It took England 180 years after Newton 
before she could produce a Darwin, and as Britishers are tive 
times the number of Jews, even including those of Bussia, U 
would take on the same showing 900 years before they produi 

liv J. Jacobs. — The Comparative 

another Spinoza, or, even supposing the double superiority to be 
true, 450 years would be needed. But in the lower ranks even of 
biology Jews have done and are doing good work. Bernstein, 
Cohn, Remak, Rosenthal, and Valentin as physiologists, Cohn- 
heim, Hii*sch, Liebreich, Lombroso, and Traube as pathologists, 
will be recognised by specialists, while F. Cohn is perhaps the 
third greatest botanist in Germany. But Jews show to more 
advantage in abstract science, mathematics and astronomy. 
The history of pure mathematics during this century would show 
large blanks if the names of Jaeobi, Sylvester, Kronecker, and 
Cremona were removed. In astronomy we have the cluster of 
the Herschells, the name of Goldschmidt, who discovered fourteen 
asteroids in the " fifties " and " sixties " when such discoveries 
were not an everyday occurrence, and W. Meyerbeer, brother of 
the musician and author of the first great chart of the Moon. 
Altogether, then, I conclude that Jews take their full share in 
the scientific work of the day. This result of the table, how- 
ever, was so contrary to my expectations that I have attempted 
to check it by other estimates. In Sir John Lubbock's Jubilee 
speech at York I find eight Jewish names out of the 289 who 
are mentioned as contributing to the last fifty years of science : 
this is considerably above their proper proportion, even when 
including the Russian Jews. Again, in M. de Candolle's book, 
"Histoire de Science," I find 10 Jews holding 16 out of the 824 
chairs as foreign members of the scientific academies, which he 
uses as a test of scientific ability. This is just the right propor- 
tion, the Jews of Europe being 7 out of 333 million. 

Less surprise will be felt at the subjects in which Jews seem 
to show superiority. In acting that is better recognised on the 
Continent than here, and the same may be said of medicine : in 
Austria one may say Ubi tres medici dtu> Judmi, The Jewish 
merchants who get into the dictionaries are of course the great 
financiers. But it is chiefly in music and philology that Jewish 
superiority is most marked — music sixfold, and in philology 
there seems to be nine times as much Jewish talent as European. 
For the former, besides the great names of Mendelssohn, Hal^vy, 
Meyerbeer, Rubinstein, already mentioned, we have many lesser 
lights like Sir Julius Benedict, Sir M. Costa, F. Cowen, Joachim, 
Pauline Lucca, Moscheles, Sir A. Sullivan. English music, to 
say the least, would be almost non-existent without these Jewish 
names. Even more striking is the number of Jewish names 
distinguished in philology. These are not alone connected 
with Oriental and Semitic philology like Benfey and Oppert, 
but they count a goodly number of classical scholars, Bernays, 
Bernhardy, Lehrs, Friedlander, H. Weil, to whom we may add 
■'c'— 'iTid, the author of the Latin Dictionary, which is the basis 

Dislrihiiion of Jewish Alr'dUy. 


of all those used in England. Tlie names of Lazarus and 
Steiuthal are known wherever tlie principles of pliilology are 
studied. In modern langui^es, too, Jews have done good work. 
Sanders has done for German whut Littr^ did for French, and 
a Jew, the well-known Ollendorf, may claim to have taught 
languages to the largest number of people liy the clumsiest 
method of teaching. 

If we may venture to inquire into the causes of tlie Jewish 
superiority established on these somewhat hypothetical gi'ounds, 
there are various reasons which can be given. We have to take 
account of their residence in cities, always more conducive to 
the life intellectual. From this, too, follows their addiction to 
commerce as distinguished from industiy, and as the former 
implies head work, and the latter handicraft, mental capacity 
must be aided by this fact The care Jeivs give to their 
children's education is well known, and must help. All Jemsli 
boys have hitherto had to leai-n Hebrew, as weU as the verna- 
cular, and this must further mental progress. Dissenters gene- 
rally seem more intellectual because they have early to think 
I out their differences fiom the generality. In the case of Jews, 
I persecution, when not too severe, has probably aided in bringing 
I tout their best powei-s : to a high-spirited race, persecution, when 
f there is hope of overcoming it, is a spur to action. The solidarity 
L of Jews and the aid they willingly give to young men of promiaa 
I asaiste in devuloping wliatever talent there may be in the com- 
I munity. The happy home-life of Jews, and the practical and 
I iindogmatic character of then- religion, together with the"absence 
I of a priesthood, have contiibuted to give the corpus sannm, and 
K'tbtiB the mens sana. Jewish reason has never been in fetters, 
land finally the weaker members of each generation have been 
I'freeded out by persecution which tempted or forced them to 
l-emhrtice Christianity, and thus contemporary Jews are the 
I anrvival of a long process of unnatural selection which has 
iBcemingly fitted them excellently for the stiuggle for intellectual 
I existence. 

Turning from these general causes, it would be of interest to 

l-discover the reasons for the special ability of Jews in music, 

■mathematics, metaphysics, pliilology^ and finance. The chief 

Eeause of the musical pre-eminence of Jews lies, in all probability, 

HI the home character of their religion, which necessiu'ily makes 

masic a part of every Jewish home: this too was the only 

lirection in which their artistic sensibilities could be gratified 

hjewish philology is in pai-t due to their frequent change of 

jountry, and also to the fact that they have had au additional 

red language besides the vciuacidar. As i-egards Qnenca " 

e the Jews have had their greatness thrust upon them : (i^ 

Ivi J. Jacobs. — The Comparative 

world forced them to become financiers centuries before finance 
became a power, and must not complain if Jews now profit by 
their start in financial experience. I am inclined to think that 
their finance has something to do with their decided leaning for 
mathematics. Metaphysics, with Jews as with others, is an 
oli'shoot of theology, but even here we can trace the influence 
of their mathematical tendency in the abstract nature of their 
thought. Altogether the productions of Jewish intellect strike 
one as being predominantly abstract — a result, doubtless, of their 
long life in cities and of their exclusion from Nature on the one 
side, and from the education which lies in handicrafts on the 
other. We may expect great mathematicians and philosophers 
from them, but not, I think, great inventors, biologists, or painters, 
till they have had time to throw off the effects of their long 
seclusion from Nature. 

Finally, it is right that I should conclude with a confession 
and a warning. The former is perhaps unnecessary, but it is 
that this paper, which puts Jewish ability in a favourable light, 
emanates from a Jew. I am afraid this is bad taste, though I 
might defend myself by the example of the great Swiss naturalist, 
De Candolle, who has written a large book to show how superior 
Swiss naturalists are to all others. I should have been glad to 
hand over the investigation to a Gentile if I could have found 
one with sufficient interest in Jews to undertake the task, 
patience sufl&cient to look through some 30,000 names, and 
temerity enough to classify all the Jewish talents in their order 
of merit. Failing this, I have had to risk the imputation of 
bad taste, and shall be content if I avoid that of bad science. 
I can only say that I have throughout been conscious of the 
danger of being biassed in favour of Jews, and have guarded 
against it to the best of my power, taking a final precaution in 
warning the reader of the fact. At any rate, I do not think the 
results I have reached run counter to any common impression, 
and certainly not, in liberal England, to any popular prejudice. 

Appendix I. 

Jewish Gelehrities, 1785-1885.^ 

Celebrity is a relative term. In some cases It may mean that 
CBCumenical fame which M. Renan has declared to be the one thing 
that is not vanity. In other cases, again, it may only indicate the 
local notoriety of a prominent member of a clique. There is always 

^ This list appeared first in the Jewish Chronicle of 25th September, 1885. 
M. Isidore Loeb and Professor Kaufmann have been good enough to give me 
some additions and corrections. Owing to these, the numbers given in the body 
of the paper no longer exactly answer to the data given in the Appendix, but the 
changes were too unimportant to need a revision of the numerical results. 

Distribution of Jewish Ahiliti). 

i danger of including i 
e latter kind. "" ' 


1 any list of Jewish celebrities cases of 

itie more probable with liTing notorieties 

^ose trne proportionB are obscnrcd by their very prositnity to ns. 

' 1 the other hand, Jewish celebrities are scattered over all the 

s of civilisation, and any collection made in one of them is too 

y to ignore Jews of other countries whose fame may be local, 

none the leaa deserved. Finally, now that the Iwirriers of 

demarcation are removed, there is often a difficulty of identifying 

in aa Jews, and, still more, the necessity of exclnding 

it men credited with being Jews without any warrant.^ 

mdeavonred to avoid these pitfalls by obtaining the 

(llowing list of Jewish celebrities from the works specially devoted 

b recording the names of those who stand oat from the rest of 

'r countrymen because they have added to the wisdom or delig'ht 

le world. Almost without exception I have obtained the names 

jE living Jewish celebrities from the following four works : — 

"iperean, " Dictionnaire des Contemporaius," Paris, 18S0 (7,528 

as) ; T. Cooper, " Men of the Time," London, 18S0 (3,108 

Bs) i A. de ubematis, "Dizionario degli scrittori contem- 

nei," Florence, 1879 (4,525 names) ; Bornmiiller, " Schrifts- 

dlerleiikon," Leipzig, 1882 (2,367 names).^ 

r Jews of the past I have had resort to Oettinger, "Monitenr 

S Dates," Dresden, 1865-82, but as this inclndes no less than 

7,000 names, I have not gone through it, but merely referred to 

names which I otherwise knew to be well known. In all 

e obtained 330 names of Jews bom between 1733 and 1835, 

1 celebrated between 1785 and 1885, whom the compilers of 

B works consider worthy of distinction.' I have only included 

lose who have come under Jewish inflnences in their youth. 

r reasons explained in tbe foregoing paper I have endeavoured 
\ class these under various specialities in four different orders of 
The few " illustrions " Jews are printed in black type, 
} whom I regard as " eminent " have their names in small 
als ; the nest grade including " distinguished " Jews have 
I placed in italics, and tbe remainder in ordinary type. The 
les of those who are Jews only in blood and not in creed, have 
L asterisk affised to them ; those of half-Jewish blood have an 

one not altogether snub, who haa not. been written down aa Jew. Gam- 
k, BmlimB, Q-. H. Lewes, Adelina Fatti, Costehir, nro among tboee I baTe 
. Eien 0-Durge Eliot aould writa, " You will be glad to bear that Helni' 
.. a ui a Jew." (M. Blind, George Eliot, p. 01,) 

^ X faave obtained a few ndditionBl nameB from Wame's excellent "Bijoa 

rapby" and from F. Mattin'ii "Diet. Cont. Biog." On the other hand, I 

not afdeptedthe fev Jewish muoea to be found in Drake's "Diet. American 

_" 1871, or HeatoD'a" Australian Diet, of Dates," 1978 (7 otitof 924), as 

freontenls did not aeem tome up to the leiel of the other autlioritiw. I felt, 

r, tempted (o add Sir Juliua Toeel from the last-named. 

n, " Gli Iflmeliti d'Europo," 1873, has some 218 niunus, of which o 

I iftpear in the present list. Moraia' " Eminent Jewa of the KincleonlH 

"' ooutiina in tlie indei some 335 oamea, only 74 of which ooei 

Iviii J. Jacobs. — The Comparative 

obelisk prefixed, which also implies another faith except in the 
eases of Franzos and Salvador. A single date after a name is that 
of birth, and implies that the subject is, so far as I can ascertain, 
still living. 

The world delights more to honour those who delight it than 
those who instruct it, and we may therefore begin with the Protean 
aspects of 


Belles Lett res. — And first among poets we have the great 
name of Heinrich Heine* (1799-1856), whom Matthew Arnold 
goes so far as to term '^ the greatest name in European literature 
since Goethe." Austria boasts of five Jewish poets, L. A, Franhl, 
Ritter von Hochwarth (1810), K. BecJc* (1817), and S. Heller 
(1823), author of " Ahasver,'' L. Wihl (1819), L. Kalisch (1814), 
and France, K Manuel (1823). Italy has D. Levi (1821), and 
S. Romanelli (1757-1814), Germany, M, Beer (1800-33), author of 
'* Struensee," and brother of the composer, and S. Lipiner (1850), 
who made a sensation a few years back with his '* Entfesselte 
Prometheus," and finally, Denmark had Henrick Hertz (1798- 
1878). The next highest form of literary art at the present day is 
the novel, "prose-poetry," as the Germans call it. In this branch 
there occur the great names of Bbrthold Auerbach (1812-82), and 
Benjamin Disraeli (1804-81), while t^. -^. Franzos (1848) bids 
fair to reach equal heights. These are followed by L, Kompert 
(1822) and A, Bernstein (1812-83), the latter of whom turned from 
novel- widting to popularising science. These with 8, Kohn (1825), 
the author of " Gabriel," and M. Goldschmidt (1819), may be 
regarded as the specifically Jewish novelists, and specimens of the 
work of the five foreigners have been translated into English, as 
well as into most European languages. Judaism may claim half 
of the brilliant talents of fPaul Heyse (1830), aud there seems to 
be some probability that Jules Verne (1828) is a Jew. The novel 
is a branch of literary art in which women attain considerable skill. 
Madame Fanny Lewald* (1811), Heine's sister, the Prinzessa della 
Rocca* (1810), and the Danish novelist Olivia Levison (1847), 
known as " Sylvia Bennett," are the representative Jewesses. My 
authorities add the names of A. Meissner (1822-85), Max King 
(181 7), and A. Schrader (1815-78) . Jewish dramatists may follow 
Jewish novelists. The two most conspicuous names here are 8. 
Mosenthal (1821-77), whose "Leah" traversed the boards of Europe, 
and fLudovic Halevy (1834), the composer's nephew, and the most 
prolific of contemporary French dramatists. /. v. Weilen (1830) 
and Hugo Burger (1846) are two of the chief dramatists in Austria. 
B. Abraham (1833), H. J. Cremieux (1828), A. P. A. Millaud (1836), 
contribute to the French stage, while D. Kalisch (1820-72), E. 
Jacobson (1833), and S. Schlessinger (1825) have contributed 
many comedies to the G^mjan stage. The late fH. J. Byron (1835- 
84) was partly of Jewish blood, his mother bein? a daughter of 
Solomon who found " Balm in Gilead." We nave now to add 

Bistriiution of Jewish Ability. lix 

litteratei»ri of the easayisfc type. Under this head we may place 
L. Boam" (1786-1837), a brave -wari-ior in the literury War of 
Liberation, G. Bieeser (1806-63), K. Blind (1833), whose celebrity 
is more political than literary. A writer of qnite a different class 
was Crace-ijuilar (1810—47), whose volnmes on " Home Influence" 
and the like atiU find favonr among' Englishwomen. To them we 
majadd literary critioe, the chief Jewish name in this branuh being 
that of George Brandee (l&i2), to whom we may add I. IHsraeti 
(1766-1848), of "Cariosities of Literatnre" fame, and M. Bernajs* 

Press. — In the last two mbrics we have almost passed the line 
which, separates belles lettree from the press to which we may now 
turn. The chief reviews of Germany, Dmttache Bundschau, Gegen- 
tea/rt, Iford und Sud, are edited by Julius Rodeiiburg (1831) and 
fPttwi Limdaii (1889) respectively. Other German journalists of 
Jewish origin are I. Leiderer (" Ichneumon," 1810), O. Gumprecht 
(1813), musical critic, 0. Blumenthal (1805), and M. Saphir 
(1795^1858), a comic writer of some power. There are besides 
two colouies of Jewish jonmaliats situated at Vienna and Paris, 
the centres of feuil.leton writing. At the former capital Heine's 
brother, O. Heine (1805), won his title of Bitter von der Geldern, 
and B. Spiher (1835), author of Wiener Spaiiergange, M. Harii- 
mann (1821), M. Bai'ach ("Dr. Marzroth ") (1818), I. Jeittoles* 
(1814, " Julius Seidlitz "), F. Gross (1849), E. Knh (1828-76), and 
I. Nordmaan (1820) have earned their meed of praise in comment- 
ing on the events of the day. In the Parisian Brotherhood of the 
Pen we have A. Wolff (1825), in a way the d(n/t!ti of the French 
Press whose position corresponds with that of G. A. Sala on our 
own, and A. Weill (1813), whose relations with the press are now 
in the past. Besides these there are, or were, Leon Halftvy (1802- 
88), the composer's brother and the dramatist's father, fPrevoH- 
Faradol (1829-79), E. Naquet (1819), and M. A. Mithiud (18a9), 
both brothers of French Senators, Joseph Cohen (1817), and two 
Germans located at Paris, Max Nordan (1849) and A. Cohn 
(1819), the latter a literary Jack of all trades, who is known 
under the soubriquet of " August Mels." The names of the great 
Paris publishers, Michel (1821-75) and Calmann Levy (181S), 
may be added to the list of Parisian journalists. Italy gives us 
C. Levi (1852), and Denmark had L. L. Nathan^on* (1780-1868).» 

MrsiC. — Turning from, what we may call the arts of rhyme and 
reason, we may now enumerate Jewish celebrities in the art of 
rhythm and melody. F. B. IMendelsBOhn* (1809-47) stands out 
foremost here bs the Kunderkiiid of modem mnsic; apart from the 
intrinsic merits of hia own work he would deserve the world's 
gratitude for havinfi; re-discovered Bach. Some would reckon the 

' The aboTQ names nppear in Vaperenn, Boronifillcr, and Do Gubematis. To 
man? of Diy reoderi names of speeiivl eoiTeBp<mdeDta like M. lie Blonitx, Timet 
<»rre«pondeiit at Paris, aud the late Dr. Schlesinger, London ropreBBntatire of 
the Kolniiche Zeiiung, would seem to deserve imectioa oa ttoll as maiij of these 

Ix J. Jacobs^ — The Comparative 

musical merits of J. E. F. Hai±tt (1799-1862) as even superior 
to that of Mendelssohn, and J. Metsrrees (1794-1864) had the 
merit of being Wagner's master in his ^ first period." Ignaz 
MoscheLes (1794r-1870) oomes, perhaps, next in the list of Jewish 
composers, thongh his repotation is mnch narrower than that of 
/. C^enhach* (1819-82), tilie musical Toioe of the Second Empire. 
Our own England offers the promise of even higher things in 
F. H. Cawen (1852). Most of the ^' titular " musical leaders in this 
country are reported of Jewish blood. Sir J. Benedict* (1805-85), 
Sir IT. Costa* (1810-84), " bom in Naples of an old Spanish family" 
(a Sephardi), and fSirA- Stdlivan (1844). Of minor composers we 
mav select of Prenchn:ea N. M. Alkan (1803-75 ?), Jules Cohen 
(18:35), and Em Jonas (1827) ; of Englishmen, I. Nathan (1792- 
1865), to whose music Bj^ron wrote his ^ Helnrew Melodies," and 
C. K. Salaman (1814), and I also find a Swede of some note in 
*J. A. Josephson (1818). But Jews have perhaps achieved greater 
triumphs as executants than as composers. The piano has found its 
greatest master at the present day in * Anton Rubinstein (1829), and 
* Joseph Jodchim (1831) may be said to play first fiddle wherever 
he goes. Of great teachers Felicien David (1810-73) for the violin, 
and Ferdinand Siller (1813) for the piano, may be here mentioned. 
H. HeUer (1813), the brothers Herz (1806), and J. S. Herz (1797) 
are well-known French pianists, and the eccentric H. Cohn* 
(" P^re Hermann ") is a violinist of some reputation. The sweetest 
singers of Israel are /. Braham (1774-1856), who used invariably 
to compose his own songs, among which the " Death of Nelson " 
has become an English VoUcsLied, and Favline Lucca* (1840). 

The Stage owes much of its attractive powers in recent years to 
Jewish genius. The greatest name among French tragedians is 
acknowledged to be that of Bachsl Fblix (1820-58), and her only 
rival in European fame is nowadays S. Bernhardt* (1844). Other 
actresses of note on the French stage have been Madame Judith 
(1827), a relation of Bachel's, and I. NathaUe (1816). Of Jewish 
actors I find mentioned with honour X. Bamay (1842), A. 
Sonnenthal (1834), L. J. Booth (1796-1853), and his son f Edwin 
Booth, B. Davidson (1818-72), F. L. F. Loewe(1816), D. E. Band- 
man (1839), and E. Blum (1836). Of great managers mention 
should be made at least of B. Lumley (1812-75). 

PArsrrmo and Sculptube. — Finally we may conclude this list of 
Jewish contributors to Art by an enumeration of Jewish painters. 
Sir J. E. Millaia has, we understand, Jewish blood in his veins, but 
we cannot include him among Jewish painters. The first place 
among these is held by Jos^ Israels (1824), celebrated for his 
delineations of Dutch fisher-life. Then comes J^. Bendemon (1811), 
and A. Solomon (1835-72), once well known for his painting, 
" Waiting for the Verdict"; S. A. Hart (1806-81) deserves a place 
here as the first Jewish Boyal Academician; W. Gkx)dman. My 
authorities add the following names: — J. A. M. Jacobs (1812), the 
brothers C. E. Lehman (1814) and B, Lehman (1819), E, Leoy 
(1826) and H. L. Levy (1840), B. Ulmann (1829), and J. Worms 

Distribution of Jewish Ability. 


PSSS), aJI in France, 
jrniany. Of ionlpto 

P. E. Meyerbeira (1808-79), in 
are two ■who have attained to some 
I France, Adam Solomon (1818-81) and H. J. Daniel 
ftSOi), while E. Wolfl (1814) is known in France, and another 
S. Wolff (1802) in Italy. Only two architecta occnr in my 
fcithoritieB, G. Baeevi* (1795-184!5), Lord EeaconsHeld'a uncle, 

1 architect of the FitzwiUiam " ~ ~ .~ 

80h (1828). 

n. — Science. 

Tnming from art that delights to science that instmctB, we may 
begin by enumerating the few Jewish names who have reached any 
ind of eminence in Philosophy. Of these the most genial, though 
'kot the best known or the moat influential, is Solomon Maimon 
(1753-1800), one of the most remarkable men that Judaism has 
produced. Though only trained in the ordinary Rabbinio echools, 
DO displayed metaphysical powers of a high order. His genius was 
recognised by Kant, and though soon obscured and eclipsed by 
the great Epigonoi, Fichte, Hegel, and Schelling, it is nowadays 
recognised that bia ciitioism struck at the root of the Kantian 
system. His remajkable self-analysis in hia autobiography would 
stamp him as no ordinaiy man ; it is the nearest to Kousseau'a 
" Confessions " of all self-revelations. Maimon was also one of the 
earliest forerunners of Symbohc Logic (c/. Venn, "Symbolic Logic," 
pp. 377, 420). The only other names of importance are those of 
H. Steinthal (1828), M. Lazarus (1824), a-ai A. Frarick (1809), 
Membre de rinstitut and editor of a. philosophical encyclopoedia. 
The former, however, has gained his greatest laurels in philology, 
the two latter in literature of an essayist type. Lassalle perhaps 
deserrea mention here for his book on Heracleitus. One of raj 
authorities adds aname unknown to mo, Melchior Meyr (1810-71).' 

History, philosophy teaching by example, has chiefly attracted 
Jews so far as it aflbcts themselves. Of Jewish historians, H, 
Graetz (1817) ia nndoubtedly the greatest, and deserves to rank 
by himself, though hia judgment ia not aa groat as his erudition. 
J. M. Jotit (1?93-1864) comes next to him, and then fJ. Salvador 
(1796-1860), who was a potent inflaence in hia way in France. I. 
De Costa* (1798-1861) also wrote the history of the nation he had 
deserted. Jews have also written history of other nations, notably 
Sir F. Cohen Palgeaye* (1788-1861), the first in point of date of 
the scientific historlana of England. G. F. Hembifr'j (1821), the 
Greek historian, is, I believe, a Jew, and so were S. Romanin (1808- 
61), the historian of Venice, and P. JafEe" (1819-?0), who drew np 
the Bfgpsta of the Popes. W. Frankl" (Fraknoi) (1843) is one of 
the chief historians of Hungarian, and M. Pliilipson (1846) and 
H. Brealau (1848) are German historians of promise. Young 
Prof. L. Geiger (1848) proniisea to bo the leading authority on tho 
Kenaissance i H. Cohen (ISIO) an authority of numismatics. A 

' FrofosBor H. Colien, tliu Kantian, liaa not jat got into Uie dtulioaiiF' 
m. Krotlmiul (1785-1S4U), who modo a uut uneucceBeful attempt ti 

J. JacobSu — ne Comparaiim 

ferw amtiqiuKriams maj foUow tlie Instoanams. M.A.Lewj (1817—72), 
<me c€ die chief aathorities on ancrient epigraplij, J. L. Kleiu 
(ldlO-76) WTDie the most Tohmdnoiis work on the historj of the 
drmma; G. Coen (1847). an Italian labtiographer, ai^ Mr. L. R 
(1842), the oompikr of an extensile ^ Dictxoaiarj' ci 

Economics studies the aunena of hiatoijy and Jewish economists 
haTe been some cf the most inftnential names in the saence. 
Datid Ricakdo* (1772-1823) is onlj second to Adam Smith. 
Kasi.Mjl&x (1808-^) was the ^headcentre" of modem Socialism, 
thoogh this was led sociallj bj the gifled Fir»MT.%xp IaaSv^^t^lk 
(182^-63), who win take eren higher rank nhen we come to 
politicians. Other Jewish economislB are E. Morpmrgo (1S40-85), 
and E. Laxcad (1843). Statistics is the handmaid of Eooncmics. 
and three Jewish names, JH Noeh (1816), /. £amt (18M), and L. 
heri* (1821), aie distinguished in this science. 

Mathematics. — ^Here we reach another specialitj of Jews. At 
their head stands the name of Professor J. G. SrLnsTEK (1814), 
probably the greatest firing pore mathematician, if his liial ai^ 
fnend. Processor CayleT, does not usurp that place. Of equal 
rank in the past was 'C. G. J. Jacobi* (1804-51), afler whom 
certain intricate functions wee termed ^ Jaoobians." Then come 
L.KT&mecker (1823) and L. Crcmuma (1830), and these are fiillowed 
bj H. Filipowski (1817—72), the oompOer of some anti-logarithmic 
taUes, O. Terquem (1782-92), M. Levy (1791-53), R Gomperts 
(1779-1865), the first actuary cit the "^ Alliance," and one of the 
eariiesi students of '' Double Algebra," L. Bendavid (17G2-1783), 
Mendelsaohn's friend, and L Blum (1812).^ 

A5TB050MT has some verj great names of Jewish blood, though 
some of them kept not their Jewish faith. Of these the greatest 
is Sir W. Hebschell* (1738-1822), and his sister, C. HmcMl* 
(1750-1848). To these we can add fll Gddtchmidi (1802-^), the 
disooYerer of 14 asteroids, W. Meyerbeer^ Mejerbeer*s brother, and 
first cartographist of the moon (1797-1850), and M. Loewy (1833), 
of the Paris Obserratory. 

BiOLOGT. — ^Few Jews seem to hare devoted themselTes to this 
subject, though jP. Cokn (1828) and S. PrimgAfim are among the 
greatest names in German botany. In the departm^it of physiolc^y , 
Jews, howerer, count a large number of oomparativ^y important 
names. R. Bemak (1816-65) was one of the greates t in the past, 
G. G. Valentin (1808-83) wrote one <^ the best text-books in the 
^ fifties," and ^ Valentin's knife " is stiQ used by specialists. Both 
/. Benuteim (1839) and J. BosemtJud (1836) have had books in the 
^ International Scioitific Series," and J, Cohmheim (1839-84), H. 
Cohn (1838) the oculist, and G. Schwalbe (1816) are other Jewish 

Urn Eoa and Hegd, will prolnblj ahvajs be kept out oi them hj his choiee of 
Hebrew to cipicas Ids riews. 

^ G-. Outor, the historian of matliematies, T. Bctss, the phjsidst, snd the 
first Jew to enter the Beriin AeademjjhaTe eaoiped the noUoeof UMb biogiaphas. 
PrafiesBor Sduuler has onlj to wait. 

Distribiition of Jemitik Ability. Ixiii 

namea connected with physiology, moat of them as apecialiats on. 
nerves. Other names will meet us among' the Jewish doctors. 

PmLOLOGT. — But it ia chiefly in philology that Jewish science ia 
BO predominant. The philosophic aide of philology ia nowadays 
dominated by the school of M. Lazarus (1834) and H. Steinthal 
(1828), who have founded the acieuce of national psychology. Carl 
Ahel (1839) ia doing good work in treating of Comparative Lexioo- 
graphy, and L. Geiger was even a greater name (1829-70). M. Bre'al 
(1832) is one of the greatest authorities ou Comparative Mythology. 
Claaaical Philology ia not without its Jewish masters, L . FriedlAider 
(1814), the gi-eatest living authority on the silver age of Rome, /. 
Serrtays (18^4^-82), W. Freitnd (1806), on whose Latin dictionary 
all those used in England are founded, H. Weil (1818), Membre de 
I'Inatitnt, BernJiardij* (1800-75), Lehrs* (1802-78), and L. Meyer 
(1833). Modem languages have also found their mastera among 
Jews. The gifted A. L. Davids (1811-31) for Turkish, A.Vamb^ry* 
(1832), and M. Bloch* (1815) for Hungarian, A. Darmestetm- (1846) 
for French, D. Sanders (1819) for German and modern Greek, M. 
Landau (1837) for Italian, are here the Jewish names, while H. 
Bacbarach (1810) ia mentioned aa a translator from German into 
French, and R. O Ollewhrf (1805-65) invented the method by 
which modern langu^es are still chiefly taught. But it is only 
natural that Jewa should take the highest rank in Oriental Philo- 
logy. In Germany Th. Bbnfey* (1809-82) held the same position 
aa Professor Mas Miiller does in England. His great apeciality 
was Sanscrit, as ia that of G. J. Ascoli (1829) and E. Brandea 
(1847).! Coptic is that of C. Abel, Egyptian off 0. Ehers (1837), 
Hindnatani of G. Q. Leitner* (1840), and, it aeems, all Eaatera 
tongues of Dr. L. Loewe (1809). M. James DaTmesteter (1849) ia 
DOW one of the chief Zend scholars, and promiaes to be one of the 
moat influential Orientalists in Europe. In the Semitic branchea 
we find even more Jews. Professor J. Oppebt (1825) ia perhaps 
the leading Aasyriologist of the day, and has advanced the develop- 
ment of cuneiform more than any living man after Rawlinson. 
The promise of P. LuKzato (1829-54) in the same branch was out 
off by an early death. The late M. A. Levy was an authority on 
Phtenician (1817-72). In Arahic G. Weil (1808) translated the 
1,001 Nights, and wrote the Standard History of the Caliphs. 
The two Derenbourgs, J. Derenbourg pere (1811) and H. Derenbourg 
Jils (1844), S. Munk (1805-66), the Editor of Maimoiddea, I. Ooldxiher 
(1840), (also known for a I'athor wild book on the mythology of 
the Hebrews), and D. H. Miiller are all well-known Arabists. We 
naturally meet with a crowd of Jewish names connected with the 
Hebrew language and literature. Of these the two greatest are 
undoubtedly Leopold Zunz (1794) and Mobitz Stecnschkeider 
(1816) ; though A. Geioek (1810-74) displayed talents of aa wide 
range as they. Graetz we have already mentioned, and S. L. 
Bapi^ort (1790-1867), co-fonnder with Zunz of modem Jewiali i 

* I ouuiot find T. GoldetackeT (1819-71) in Bay of tie referenoe bookt. 

Ixiv J. Jacobs.— ^e Comparative 

scholarship, S, D. Luzzato (1800-65), Z, Frankel (1801-75), the 
chief of scholarly Talmndists, and hngo intervallo J, Fiirst (1805- 
73), author of a Hebrew Concordance and Lexicon, are the next 
greatest names. A, Jellinek (1821) has never concentrated himself 
sufficiently to do justice to his powers, and the same may be said 
of M. M. Kalisch (1828-85). I would add the names of my friends 
Br. A, Neuhauer (1832) and Dr. M, Friedldnder (1833) to the 
above. The versatilely. PMlippsohn (1811), M. Kayserling (1828), 
and D. GastelU (1836) follow, and these may be succeeded by an 
alphabetical list of the remainder. Dr. H. Adler (1839), the Chief 
Rabbi, Dr. N. M. Adler (1803), E. Benamozegh (1822), F. F. 
Benary* (1805), A. Benisch (1811-78) J. H. Biesenthal* (1800), I. 
Cahen (1826), S. Cahen (1796-1863), E. Carmoly (1885-75), B. 
Consolo (1815), M. Lattes (1846-84), I. Leeser (1806-68), D. Levi 
(1740-99), M. Mortara (1815), M. MargoUouth* (1820-82), M. 
Shapiro (1816), and M. Soave (1801-83).i 

III. — Peactical Life. 

Politics. — Considering the restrictions under which they have 
laboured, Jews have shown marked ability for politics. Here they 
have two names of the very first rank. Lord Beacon sfield'* 
(1804-81), whatever we may think of his political achievement, is 
certainly entitled to rank among the first ten men of his time in 
England. Ferdinand Lassalle (1825-63), the Messiah of modem 
Socialism, made the greatest impression of any man of his time 
in Germany ; in 1863, when he died in a duel at the early age of 
thirty-eight, Bismarck and he were regarded as the two foremost 
men of the Fatherland.* These great names are followed by those 
of Jules Simon* (1814), whose Jewish parentage is not certain, 
'I. A. Cremieux (1796-1881), to whom the French nation awarded 
a public funeral, and E. Laskeb (1839-83), the leader of the 
National Liberal Party in Germany. Other important personages 
are A, Fould (1800-67), M, Goudchaux (1727-1862), G, d'Fichthal* 
(1804), and A, Naquet (1834) in France; L. Bamberger (1828) and 
J, Jacoby (1805-77) in Germany, the latter the leading spirit of 
German Liberalism ; and I. Kv/randa (1811-84) and E. Horn (1825- 
75) in Austria ; T, Massarani (1826) may follow here, though more 
distinguished as poet and painter than as politician. W. Lowe 
(1814) and H. B. Oppenheim (1819-80) in Germany; Sir F, 

* These are all the names of Hebraists occurring in the books of refei-ence 
to which I restrict myself. The lacunsB under this head are naturally many. 
I can find nowhere any mention of Barasch, S. Benedetti, A. Berliner, D. 
Chwolson*, E. Deutsch (1829-73), L. Dukes, R. Eisel of Slonim, I. Erter, Fasael, 
J. Friedman, J. L. Gordon, Jos. Hal^vy, Harkavy, N. Krochmal (1785-1820), 
L. Low (1811-75), Mappo, J. S. Nathanson, Reifmann, Rosin, Schorr, Weiss, not 
to speak of younger men whose fame is yet to come. On the other hand, Cooper 
inserts J. Levisohn* (1797), whose only claim to distinction seems to be that a 
book he wrote was suppressed, and only two copies of it are now said to be in 

-A brilliant study of the last year of his life is contained in (S^eorge Meredith's 
^Singid OomedianB." 

Distribution of Jewish AhiUty. Ixv 

Omsma (1808-80), Daron Lionel de Rothschild (1808-81), Sir 
D. Salomons (1797-1873J and Sir B. S. Phillips (1811), in England, 
and MM. Millaud (1834), F. David (1?96-1879), and BMarridea 
(181?) in Prance, complete the list of politicians contained in ray 
authorities. I. Artom (1829) may be added as a diatingnished 

The Professioks also yield their quota of Jewish celebrities, 
though it is extremely seldom that a professional man reaches 
international rank. Medicine has been the favourite among Jews, 
■who court among their number, in addition to those nientioned as 
physiologists, the names of Traiibe (1818-?6). 0. Lombroeo (1836), 
the greatest of Italian doctors, F. R. Liehreich (1830), the ophtbal- 
mologist and inventor of the " eye mirror " A. Hirsch (1817), the 
standard authority on "medical geography," Zeisd (1813), the 
chief authority on syphilis, and K. F. GaTntati (1807—50), whose 
" Vierteljahrschrift" was the repository of the first German medical 
■work of the time. Less important names are M. Heine*, brother 
of the poet (1807), H. A. Bardeieben (1819), a distinguished 
sui^eon, E. Altschul (181 2), a leading homoeopathist. Stork (1820- 
75) the laryngoscopist, M. L. 0. Liebreich (1839), brother of the 
ophthalmologist and discoverer of " chloralhydrate " with all its 
dubious uses ; Oemudn See (1818), and his brother Maro (1827), A. 
Lumbroso (1813), L. Mandl (1812-81), M. Uvi (1809-72), and 
A. Mayer (1814) in Paris end the list of distingniahed Jewish 
medical man. tain follows with the names of E. Ganb* (1798-1839) 
as one of the chief leaders in the German school of legal theoiy j 
Sir G. Jessel (1824-83), late Master of the Bolls, as one of the 
greatest practical lawyers of the age. J. P. Benjamin (1811-84) 
was the chief English barrister of his time, as well as one of the 
" headcentres " of the Southerners, J. Glaser* (1831-85) has been 
recently described in the newspaper obituaries as " Austria's 
greatest jurist," and H. Demburg* (1829) is an important OeiToan 
legist. Other names of Jewish lawyers are H. P. Jacobsou (1804- 
68), T. M. C. Asser (1838), who recently represented Holland at 
the Congo Conference, I. Luzzati (1847) and M. Levi-Vita (1840), 
two important Italian legists, and J. Bedarrides (1804-69), in. 
Prance ; Lassalle deserves to be mentioned here again for his 
" System des erworbenen Rechts." Military and Naval celebrities 
among' Jews are only represented by one in each branch : Mabsgna 
(1758-1817) on land, if we may accept Lord Beaconsfield's account 
of him as a Jew whose real name was "Menasse,"' and U .P. Levy 
(1781-1862) was an Admiral in the United States Navy of some 
note. The Okwch has not been without its Jewish ornaments ; 
the sober G. A. W. Neakder* (1789-1850), whose Church History 
is still authoritative ; the brilliant F. Cassel* (1827), M. Ballagi^ 

' " ConingBby," IV, li'. M. Loebinfonna ma that there JB nothing more in this 
identiBcation tlioa a "jsu de mot." Much the Buuo maj' be eald of other parta 
of the same obapler which cTerybody has read. Eyerybody ha* nleo read 
Thackeraj's inimitable paiFody of it in " CodUngabj," with the umimin g d' 
" The Pope is one of us ! " 

Ixvi J. JacioBS, — The Comparative 

(Blocti), the leading Protestant theologian in Hangaiy, Bis1io|) 
Hellmnth* of Huron (1820), the sole living Bishop of Hebrew 
blood, and D. Noraa* (1807), are other nameB. Cheee is nowadays 
a' profession, and mostly tt Jewish profession ; the two chief living 
names, TT. Steimtx (1837) and J. H. Zukertort (1842), being those 
of Jews, as weii as two masters of the past, A. Alexandre (1766- 
1850) and J. G. LBwenthal (1810-76). Education gives ue the 
names of B. Friedlander (1760-1834) and Levi-Alvares (1794- 

CoMMRBCE AND Phtlantheoft have been nsnally combined among 
Jewish celebrities. This is certainly the case with S. Heine (1766- 
1844), the Eothschilds,Meyer {174&-IS12), Lionel (1808-81), Edmond 
(1826), and James (1844r^4), Sir M. Montefiore f 1784-188&) ; 
the Pereires, Edmond (1800-75), and James (1806-80), L. R. 
Biscboffaheim (1800-84), J. Mires (1809-71),and J. Truro (1775- 
1854). These all obtained fortunes in finance. Of great masters of 
indnstry there is only one important name, that of B. H. Strousberg* 
(1828-84), the " Railway King" of Glermany; the only other name 
is that of J. Alexandre (1804-76), a pianoforte mann^tarer. 

Salohs of importance have been presided over by brilliant 
Jewesses. The tnree chief centres of cultured Hfe at Berlin at the 
beginning of this century were the salons oi Jta.hel vcmEnse* (1771- 
1833), Dorothea Memdelssohn-ScMegel* (1769-1839), and Henriette 
i:erz (1764-1847).' 

Travel may conclude onr new list with the names of Joseph Wolff* 
(1795-62), the eccentric ; ^W. 0. Paiffj-afe (1826), who opened up 
Central Arabia; A. Vamhiry* (1832), the leading authority on 
Centra] Asia; t^ir F. H. Goldsmid, the Persian traveller; Q-. 
Oppert (1836) ; and N. Davis" (1812-82), the explorer of Carthage, 
if he were a Jew. 

The above list does not claim or aim to be ezhanstive. It only 
jirofesses to contain the names of snch Jews as have found their 
way into dictionaries of general biograpby. By restricting myself 
thus I have been obliged to insert many names whom I should not 
myself have thought worthy of mention, and to omit others who 
appear to me to have been undeservedly overlooked. I have 
given a few of the latter in footnotes, but have not referred to the 
many yonng men of promise now springing np, as my comparison is 
mainly limited to those over fifty, at which age men first obtain 
admission to the rolls of fame. On the whole, I do n«t find many 
impoitaut omissions ; even those of the third class rarely fail to 
attract the attention of the experts in celebrity. I have been 
obliged to I'estrict myself in this way as the immediate object of the 
compilation has been to find materials for discussing thn much vexed 
question as to the relative ability of Jews. To compare them with . 
others we mnat take the same sources as those from which tho \ 
names of celebrities generally are taken. Fqr tb^ same ;pii^|»ae ^ 

' One of tlie most iniportiiati Gp§ 
Braham'a dsiigliter, while 
cliiei MilaoB in Paris al " 

IHatr3)%tion of Jewish Ability. Ixvii 

lias been neoesBary for me to nndertake tte invidioua task of classing 
the names in four classes uoireBponding to the four highest classes 
fixed with mathemetical accuracy by Mr. &alton in his " Hereditary 
Genina," 1869 (p. 34). Thefoui-th class cannot be complete, many 
sanieB cominji; by accident into the diotiouariea. For pnrposes of 
comparison the names only of those in black letters, capitals, or 
itolicR are to be considered, thongh the remainder are nsoful as 
means of judging the subi-^ts of Jewish pre-eminence. Even the 
(bird class are reckoned by Mr. Galton to reach the average of an 
English judge of the best times of the Bench, and every one of the 
Jewish celebrities are far indeed above the average Of those men 
who gain the ordinary prizes of life. 

Appendix II. 
Illustrious Europeans (1785-1885). 
I bave made the following estimate of the ability of the chief 
civilised nations founded on the number of fii-st class men they have 
prodnccd during the century 1"S5-188.5, as compared with the 
number of males who have reached fifty during that period. The 
reaaits are of course precai-ious owing to the difficulty of deciding 
npon the names of first class men. But they agree sufficiently with 
popular impressions to deserve record. The validity of the results 
would be much increased if we coald obtain lists of the secoud 

The third column of figures give the relative order of ability of 
the difCereut nationahties. The discrepancy between the table of 
the general ability of the diSerent countries, and that in the note on 
page xlix, giving that of the Jewish ability in the same, indicates the 
jnfluence of the social environment in making talent " kinetio " 
instead of " potential." The English names and numbers may bo 
taken as confirming Mr. Galton's estimate of one genius per milUon 
males over fifty. At first sight there seem to be nearly double 
that number. But G. Eliot was a woman, Pitt and Byron never 
reached fifty, Bentham and Faraday are doubtfnl (though this is 
connter balanced by the claims of Shelley and Turner), and Darwin 
is a man of many millions. So that there have been but 12 
certain geniuses among 10 or 11 millions over tifty, I wonld also 
call attention to the remarkable groupings of the births of the 
EBclishmen : three clnatered aronnd the date 17?0 (Wellington 

E769, Wordsworth 17"0, Scott 1771), five round 1810 (Darwin, 
jj^stone, and Ternvson all 1809, Thackeray l«l], Dickens 1812), 
Rtliree rouud 1820 (Buskin 1619, Eliot and Spencer 1820), 
I from the middle cluster, it would seem that a nation gives 

W nreaffist men when in the throes of it« severest struggles. 

''■ were, an incarnation of the Zeitgeist. It would be 
>B if the next batch of Enropean genius has any 
*6 year I8i8. 


J. Jacobs. — The Comparative 



No. of 

million males 

reached fifty 


No. of first 
class men. 

No. per 



France .. 


Italy .. 

United States 















Kossuth (?), Mozart. 

Beaconsfield, Bentham 
(?), Byron, Carlyle, Dar- 
win, Dickens, Q, JElioty 
Faraday (?), Gladstone, 
Macaulay, Pitt, Buskin, 
Scott, Spencer, Tenny- 
son, Thackeray, Words- 

Comte, Dumas phre (?), 
Gambetta, V. Hugo, 
Laplace, Lesseps (P), 
Mirabeaii, Napoleon, 
Pasteur, Benan, Bobes- 
pierre, Q-, Sand^ Thiers. 

Beethoven, Bismarck, 
Fichte, Gauss, Goethe, 
Grimm, Hegel, Heine, 
Helmholtz, Lassalle, 
Mendelssohn, Moltke, 
Mommsen, Schiller, 
Schopenhauer, Schu- 
bert, Stein, Wagner. 

Quribaldi, Leopardi (?), 

Skobelef (?), Turgenief. 

Emerson (?), Washing- 
ton (?). 

AU .. 




Easplanation of Plate XV. 

Fig. 1 is only intended to illustrate the fact that closed curves 
on the same side of the same base, and containing the 
same area, must cross one another. This principle applied 
to the curves in fig. 2 enables us to say that if there are 
more Scotchmen and Jews in the extreme classes, there 
must be less of them in the middle or mediocre class. 

Fig. 2 gives, as it were, the shape of the boundary walls of a 
million Englishmen, Scotchmen, and Jews penned into 
sixteen classes, ranging regularly in order of ability. 
The horizontal dotted lines give the diflPerent classes, 
named symmetrically from the centre line Ay B, (7, &c., 
towards one end, a, 6, c towards the other. It is assumed 
that a class indicated by a small letter is of the same 
size as that represented by a large letter. The numbers 

Distributiori of Jetuish Ability, Ixix 

in each class in the three races are given in the Table. 
The English numbers in this are from Mr. Galton's book ; 
the Scotch and Jewish numbers have been calculated 
from — (1) the number of celebrities ; (2) the number of 
lunatics ; (3) the principle illustrated by fig. 1, that the 
curves must cross. 
Fig. 3 is merely an illustration of the statement on page li, 
the crosses marking the percentiles shown to be equal by 
the same crosses in fig. 2. Properly speaking, the Jewish 
and Scotch percentile bars ought to be elastic and extend 
equally on both sides of the English fiftieth percentile. 
A more accurate representation of the relative ability of 
each percentile among the three races would be to draw 
the " ogives " for each so that the ordinates corresponding 
to the 72nd, 74th, 76th percentile respectively should 
be equal This would enable us to determine the relative 
ability of each percentile. But it would be misleading 
to attempt such accuracy at present, and the more 
popular statement of the text may serve as a rough 
indication in the meanwhile. 

Morrison and Sons, Printers in Ordinary to Her Majesty y Si. BfartvW « ILa-Wi** 

On the Comparative Anthropometry of English Jews. 
By Joseph Jacobs and Isidore Spielman. 

(with PLATE IV.) 

In the present paper, we give the results of a number 
of anthropometric observations on English Jews of various 
classes carried out on lines as far as possible parallel to Mr. 
Galton*s classical experiments at the International Health 
Exhibition, 1885. The measurements were made in the first 
instance at the Jewish Working Men's Club, Great Alie Street, 
E., the Committee of which was kind enough to grant us the 
use of a room for several weeks, which was fitted up, as nearly 
as circumstances would permit, in a manner similar to Mr.- 
Galton's Anthropometric Laboratory at South Kensington. 
Considerable interest was shown by the members of the Club, 
of both sexes, a large number of whom submitted themselves to 
the somewhat wearying process of being tested and measured. 

After some time the laboratory was moved to the West End 
where a number of the Jews and Jewesses inhabiting that 
quarter were good enough to go through it and submit to the 
various tests. The results were in each case written in duplicate 
on a printed form, one copy being torn off and presented to the 
examinees as some slight return for their kindness. 

Great assistance was given throughout by Mr. and Mrs. 
Ernest Franklin, while Mr. Lissack, the Honorary Secretary of 
the Club, facilitated our work in every way in his power. 

Our apparatus was modelled after those used by Mr. Galton 
at the Health Exhibition in order that our comparisons might 
be as correct as possible. 

The measurements and tests taken were : — 

Height standing without shoes. 

Height sitting. 

Keenness of sight. 

Judgment of eya 

Colour sense. 

Hearing ; highest audible note. 

Breathing power (spirometer, graduated cubic inches). 

Strength of stronger hand. 

Strength of pulL 

Weight in ordinary indoor clothing. 

Chest circumference. 

Colour of eyes and hair. 

Besides these we took measurements of the length and breadth 
cf head, for the most part with ordinary callipers graduated 


77 J. Jacobs and I. Spielman. — On the Comparative 

on the French scale ; but towards the end of our investigations 
we devised an instrument which might be adopted by anthro- 

We found that this head measurement could be more con- 
veniently taken when the " subject *' is in a sitting position and 
directly after the sitting height is obtained. The apparatus 
consists of a flat piece of board about 12'' x 9'^ Directly 
beneath this, two guides are suspended about 9^' apart, so that 
the widest head may easily go between them. A metal socket 
moves up and down on each of these guides and is made to 
fit tightly by means of springs. Attached to the sockets is a 
frame of steel wire -^'^ thick, and which in held in a perfectly 
horizontal position. This wire is bent in such a way as to make 
the " tour of the face," resting like a spectacle frame without 
eye-holes, upon the lower socket of the eye. 

The measurement is taken thus : — The board is brought down 
horizontally upon the vertex of the head of the person sitting, 
so that the head comes between the guides. The sockets carry- 
ing the frame are then brought down the guides until the 
curved part of the frame rests upon the lower socket of the eye, 
and the sides of the frame are level with the orifice of the ear. . 
This compels the head to be held in the requisite position for 
taking this measurement, and the reading upon each guide 
(which is graduated in centimetres and millimetres) should be 
identical. The wire may be pressed towards the ear when mea- 
suring narrow heads and without losing the horizontal position. 

Altogether, by the methods described above, we took on an 
average 21 measurements on each of 423 individuals ; altogether, 
8,863 measurements, a number sufficient to give trustworthy 
results, as the persons tested were themselves average samples 
of the two chief classes into which English Jews may be con- 
sidered as divided. These may be described as "West End 
Jews," the better nurtured inhabitants of the West End and 
descendents for the most part of Jews who have been long 
settled in this country, and "East End Jews," the less 
fortunately situated Jewish dwellers at the East End, the 
parents of whom in many cases were born abroad. As far as 
possible it was desirable to get out results for each of these 
classes separately, and for the most part we have done so. By 
this means we are enabled to make our results bear directly or 
one of the burning questions of anthropology, that of nurture v. 
nature, to use Mr. Galton's convenient phraseology. For the 
" West End Jews " are ultimately derived from exactly the 
same race and class as the East End Jews, so that differences 
of race are totally eliminated, and we are enabled to trace the 
influence of nurture pure and simple. The problem of deter- 

Atithropoinetry of EnglisJi Jews. 78 

mining purely ''racial characteristics" will be considerably 
simplified if we can in this way determine what may be 
described in contradistinction as " nurtural characteristics/' 
It is in this connection that our investigations appear to us to 
have a wider outlook than ordinary anthropometric results. 

Our method has been to contrast West End and East End 
Jews so as to get at the influence of nurture. But besides this, 
there might be a residuum of race influence which oould only 
be tested by comparison with another race. West End Jews 
might differ favourably in height from East End Jews and yet 
all Jews differ unfavourably in height from Englishmen, owing 
to original difference of race. Another comparison was there- 
fore necessary in order to fully test our results and that was 
with Englishmen generally. 

Here we have Mr. Galton*s results before us as a standard, 
and we have accordingly placed the results for all the Jews 
examined by us side by side with his results for the English 
men and women examined at the Health Exhibition, We have 
throughout adopted Mr. Galton's method of " percentiles " (see 
"Journ. Anthrop.Instit.," xiv,1885,p.27o)and have given the 5th, 
25th, 50th, 75th and 'J5th percentile in each case. The extremes 
give what we proposed to call the " range " while the middle 
number giving practically the " medium " or " average " result, 
though for some purposes there is a slight difference between 
the two. Finally we have worked out similar calculations for the 
no or so Sephardic Jews, descendents of the Jews expelled from 
Spain and mostly descendants of the oldest Jewish residents in 
this country. 

With these preliminary remarks we may now at once present 
a table summing up our main results. We give also, in Plate IV, a 
set of curves showing the results of these measurements, and com- 
paring them with Mr. Galton's taken at the Health Exhibition. 

The curves commence on the left hand side at the minimum, 
and end on the right hand side at the maximum capacity, whilst 
the perpendicular lines, where cutting the curves denote the 5th, 
25th, 50th, 7oth, and 9oth percentile measurements. Of course 
the most important of these perpendicular lines is the centre 
one,wliich shows the mean or average of each class as represented 
by the curves. We need scarcely add that these curves merely 
express in graphic form the information contained in Table E, 

The black solid curve represents Health Exhibition male 

The bar curve, all Jewish measurements for comparison. 

The star curve. West End Jews. 

The dotted curve. East End Jews. 

The dot-and-bar curve, the Sephardim (Spanish and Portuguese 



J. Jacobs and I. 

3PIELMAK.— (??i tU Comparative 






!i33S = 3 = 2!=ScSSs 

3-S = !55ii-SSSES = = 




1 g 3 s 1 S 5 3 8 a 3 5 a 3 s s 

gsS = ^5"3SSS3 

S s s ^ 

; V ,__,,_ „ 

S S " s 

: 1 1 § a g s 2 a 3 — 


s - s ■ 

: i S i g : g 1 S 1 g 1 



3 ■ E ■ 

g ■ a i 3 ■ S i 5 : 2 i 





lit -^ 

: i ;!!■: = = : g ; 

fs ra s ■ 

' ■ : ■ : i ; i ; ; S ; 


= 1 ;■;:!■!= =1 ; 

s s s • 

- ■ : ; i i ; ; i ; 2 i 

s fe s ^ 


^S^ ' 

; ■ = ! ; i ; F ■ : 5 ; 

; ■ i 1 : ■ i i i i ?5 = 

.■X S 3 ■ 

SI S 33 = 



IS i i s i i ■ . , i i i i • M 




1 1 

i 1 

* > 

1 1 

1 s 

ii ;b li i^ :i i« 





! i 1 1 i 

1 1 1 1. 1 1 


Anthropometry of English Jews, 80 

The lighter curves denote the corresponding female measure- 
ments in each case. 

It will be observed that the black curve is almost invariably at 
the top of each table both in minimum and maximum measure- 
ments, and frequently in the mean measurement; but Mr. 
Galton's Health Exhibition visitors are beaten in two places: 
their maximum is inferior in weight to the Sephardic Jews, and 
in keenness of sight to : — The maximum of all Jews and 
Jewesses, Sephardim and West End Jews. The East End Jews 
are there, as in all of our measurements, inferior to all but those 
of the females. 

The Sephardic Jews are the highest in maximum in weiglit 
measurement. They are the highest also in keenness of sight 
test, and their mean is good in both cases. In strength of 
squeeze they are the liighest in the mean, and lowest in mini- 
mum and maximum. In strength of pull, they are the highest 
in minimum, and lowest in mean and maximum. In span, their 
average is the lowest, but recovers towards the maximum. 
In height, they retain the 3rd place in maximum, minimum, 
and mean, the Health Exhibition males and " West End " Jews 
being superior. In breathing capacity, the same is the case. 

The West End Jews are highest in average in keenness of 
sight test, as well as in span of arms. In height, sitting and 
standing, they retain an even position directly after Health 
Exhibition male measurements. 

The East End Jews are practically the lowest everywhere in 
minimum, maximum, and mean. 

The Jewesses are superior to the Jews in keenness of sight, 
both in average as well as in minimum and maximum. In this 
test they are above the Health Exhibition males and females, 
the "AH Jews'' maximum, and the East End Jews. 
The Jewesses are above the Health Exhibition females in 
minimum, maximum, and mean of strength of squeeze. 
They are, however, inferior to them in breathing capacity. 
They are again superior in weight to their Health Exhibition 
sisters; but inferior in height, sitting and standing, and in 

The general result of this table is tolerably clear. English 
Jews in general compare unfavourably in almost all anthro- 
pological measurements with the class of Englishmen who 
visited the Health Exhibition. But if we take the West End 
Jews, who were probably of veiy nearly the same class as the 
Exhibition visitors, the inferiority vanishes almost entiiely. 
Thus, to take an example, while the mean height of " All Jews " 
was only 65 inches, against 67*9 inches for Mr. Galton's subjects, 
an inferiority of nearly 3 inches, the West End Jews averaged 

81 J. Jacobs and I. SpieLxMAN. — On the Comparative 

6 7 '5 inches against 67*9 inches, an almost inappreciable difference. 
It is obvious that nurture has made the difference between the 
heights, both of West End and East End Jews, and between Jews 
and Englishmen. Are we then to dismiss height altogether 
from our tests of race ? Is it only a difference of nurture that 
makes the contrast between the Hottentot and the Patagonian ? 
Not altogether, as we can see by scrutinising a little more closely 
the figures \Ve are discussing. The " means " are much the 
same among the well-nurtured Jews and the visitors of the 
Health Exhibition, but "the range," as we have called it, is 
different. Thus, to take the upper limit, while Englishmen 
pure and simple reached 72*4 inches, all Jews reached 70 inches, 
and West End Jews reached 70*4 inches. 

Here we have seemingly an instance where long continued 
bad nurture through many generations shows its influence on 
the measurements of well-nurtured descendants not by reducing 
the average, but by restricting the range and preventing any 
very great variations from the artificially reached average. 

If this example could be taken as typical, the real test of 
races is rather to be found in the extreme cases than in the 
mean. As a matter of fact this is practically the way in which 
popular judgments about races is made. And yet even in the 
• very case before us we have observed a striking instance of the 
permanence of race types, even in so variable a thing as height, 
which seems at first sight to depend only on nurture. In Mr. 
Jacob's paper on " The Eacial Characteristics of Modern Jews " 
(Journal, Vol. xv,1885,p. 34),hegives the measurements of height 
for nearly 13,000 Jews, which average 161*2 millimetres or 
63'47 inches. This is remarkably near the 63*75 inches which 
is given in our table as the mean height of all the English Jews 
examined by us. Altogether it would appear that while anthro- 
pological measurements depend on nurture, social conditions tend 
to preserve the same kind of nurture in various races, and so 
keep the racial measurements constant. If any change of the 
conditions of nurture occur, pre-existing conditions of bad 
imrture tend to lower the '* range " in well-nurtured descendants 
rather than to depress the average. The extremes, say the 95th 
per centile, are thus more trustworthy racial tests than the 
average or mean. 

Applying this test to our general results, we find inferiority 
all along the line in the general results of English Jews as 
compared with other Englishmen, except in two particulars, 
viz., weight in Jewesses and keenness of sight in both sexes. 
It is curious that while the average weight of Jewesses is 9 lbs. 
below that of other Englishwomen, the highest weight reached 
is 5 lbs. more in the cases of the Jewesses, a confirmation of the 

Anthropometry of JSnglish Jews. 


popular impression of the superior solidity of the Jewess.. 
Turning to keenness of sight, we find again that while the 
Jewish average is inferior, the higher limit is superior to the 
extent of 1 inch in the case of males, and of no less than 4 
inches in the case of females. A " Jew's eye," in its literal 
sense, seems therefore a valuable possession so far as keenness 
of sight, though in its appreciation of colour it is far from being 
so valuable, as we shall see. 

Having discussed such of our results as can be compared with 
Mr. Galton's, we may now proceed to give the additional infor- 
mation we have obtained and compare them with the results of 
Mr. Jacob's paper just referred to. Thus taking the colour of 
hair and eyes, we may compare the results reached as regards 
English, German, Austrian, and Eussian Jews, and may con- 
trast them with the Jews of Spanish descent known as 

Colour of Eyes and Hair. 

Table n. 











English Ashkenazic Jews 

per cent. 

per cent. 


per cent. 

per cent. 

per cent. 

per cent. 

English Sephardic Jews 








Pnusian Jews 








Austrian Jews 








Bnssian Jews 








It will be observed " that the number of blue-eyed English 
Jews is very small, viz., only 11 per cent, (as indicated by the 
centre line of figures). The Sephardim show 21 per cent. 
Taking the blue and grey eyes together as light coloured eyes^ 
they reach as much as 37 per cent., as against an average of about 
50 per cent, in comparison with their foreign brethren, Prussians, 
Austrians, and Eussians. 

The main point in the results concerning hair is the higher 
proportion of absolutely Hack hair among all English Jews, 
than among those of Prussia, Austria, and Eussia. The 
Sephardim have the largest amount of black and the smallest 
of Uonde\i'di\i, and we did not find any example of red hair among 


J. Jacobs and I. Spielman. — On the Comparative 

Considering the absence of any absolute standards for these 
colours, the results are tolerably uniform, except as regards 
two points which are probably connected together, the less pro- 
portion of blue eyes and the greater proportion of black hair 
among English Jews as compared with their foreign brethren. 

This may possibly be explained to some degree by the fifth 
class of Jews, which we have included in the above table. 
The Sephardim or Jews descended from the refugees from 
Spain after the expulsion in 1492, are generally darker in com- 
plexion, and have darker hair than other Jews, as can be seen 
from the above table, or still more decidedly from the table 
given by Dr. Beddoe at the end of his paper on the " Ethno- 
logical Characteristics of the Jewish race " (Ethnol. Trans. 1869). 
Now our measurements included nearly 50 Sephardim, and 
doubtless others who had Sephardic blood in their veins, so that 
the black hair of English Jews may be referred to the greater 
admixture of Sephardim, who do not exist elsewhere to any 
extent in Northern Europe (except in Holland).^ On the other 
hand, the paucity of blue eyes among English Jews cannot be 
accounted for on this ground, as the Sephardim do not differ 
materially in this respect from the rest of Jews. We suspect 
that a confusion of nomenclature has crept in here, and that we 
were perhaps more rigid than the foreign observers in restricting 
the term blue to the purest shade of that colour. 

While on this point, we may bring in our results as to the 
colour blindness of English Jews, which is perhaps the most 
marked characteristic we have reached. This was tested by an 
instrument exhibiting strips of wool, among which are four with 
a green shade, and the subject has to select these by placing 
pegs opposite to them. However the fact is to be explained, 
the Jews in our experiments showed a remarkable inability to 
undergo this simple test, as is shown by the following table 
which gives the percentage of failures. 

East End. 

West End. 




Jewesses . • • • 


2 1 



Previous inquirers have observed the inferiority of the Jewish 
TAfipecty but the results reached far exceed any 

V that this adndxtiire is only of recent date, 
"^g been practically endogamous. 


Anlhropoinetry of English Jews. 84 

ivioualy readied, which average about 4 per cent, for Jews, 
our results are more than three times aa large. It is 
possible that in a few instances the directions given were not 
onderstood, and the mistakes were rather misunderstandings. 
But it was too obviously plain in many instances wliere the sub- 
ject declared that he could not see any difference between brick- 
'led and pea green, and the fullest allowance for misunderstand- 
~ igs would not reduce the percentage to anything under 10 per 
The causes of this startling defect are probably to be 
lund in the long continuance of Jewi.'ih life in cities, where so 
luch less colour and especially so much less green is to be met 
ith. Of its effects we may refer to two : the absence of any 
inters of great ability among Jewish celebrities, and the want 
taste shown by Jewesses of the lower grades of society in the 
loioe of materials for dress, &c. Where there is so large an 
lount of total colour blindness, there must also co-exist a still 
jer proportion of dulled sense of colour and a general lack of 
iterest in the delights of colour, especially in its more refined 
ma. It seemed to us worth while calling attention to this 
Feet, as it is probable that early training can in some measure 
'ercome it, and it is clear that colour lessons should form part 
every Jewish child's training. 

We may now pass to another measurement in which Jews are 

metally credited with inferiority and not without reason. We 

Ter to the giilh or circumference of chest which is regarded by 

anthropologists as of such importance that they calculate 

this the " index of vitality." Unfortunately, we cannot in 

this case compare with Mr. Gallon's results, but it is at any 

rate reassuring to find that Enghsh Jews in this respect compare 

somewhat favourably vrith their foreign brethren ; their average 

35 inches against 80 cm,, or 31-5 inches for 8,000 foreign 

Here again the influence of nurture is shown by 

imparing the measurements for East and West. 

Bth, Both, 9Dth . . 32-aS-30 "5 34-36-11-41 32 -5-35^10 3*-36-39-6 

East Knd. West End. 

t may be observed that in this important characteristic the 
ihardic Jews do not show to any advantage, as it must be 
'assed they do in most of the measurements in Table I. 
ipt in span and breathing capacity, the Spanish Jews show 
' ". but marked superiority over their Ashkenazic co- 



J. Jacobs and L Spielman. — On the Comparative 

religionists as the rest of Jews are called. It is a point worthy 
of notice that the three points of Sephardic inferiority, span, 
girth, and breathing capacity, have to do with the lungs, and 
would seem to indicate a lower " index of vitality " among the 
Spanish Jews. They certainly seem to be dying out, and no 
longer possess the pre-eminence among Jews that they once did. 
It would be worth while inquiring wFiether phthisis is to any 
appreciable extent more frequent among them than among other 

We now pass from these bodily measurements to those of the 
head on which we have collected materials greater in number 
than any observer who hitherto dealt with Jewish craniometry 
on the living subject. We may sum up the whole material at 
present available in the following table, in which we have kept 
to the older names and proportions (mesocephalic = 77*8 — 80). 






























Jacobs and Spielman. 







From this it would seem that English Jews are far more long- 
headed (dolichocephalic) than those on the Continent. This 
may be partly explained by the fact that our results include 
some tJewesses and a few lads whose undeveloped crania would 
tend to lower the average. 

But there is, we believe, another explanation which will 
account for the phenomenon without supposing any deteriora- 
tion on the part of English Jews, if deterioration it is to be 
long-headed physically. There might be two men whose cranial 
index was 75, but the one might have a skull 15 x 20 centi- 
metres, the other 18 x 24. It is obvious that the latter has a 
larger receptacle for his brain, though he may have the same 
cranial index. A better test of this " capacity " would be to 
adopt the plan followed by Mr. Galton in his treatment of Dr. 
Venn's craniometrical results with regard to Cambridge students. 
He multiplied height, breadth, and length of skull together, and 
-Vnn obtained what might be termed a measure of the "know- 

" "Mibject. 

■«we unable to take the height of skull, 

Anthropometry of English Jews. 


and could not therefore make the full correction. But we have 
multiplied together length and breadth, and thus obtained what 
we might call the " foundation " index of our subjects' skulls. 
On arranging these as before with the mean between minimum 
and maximum, and contrasting these with results of the cranial 
index, we obtain some very Ught-giving results, which are of 
sufl&cient interest to deserve some minute attention being paid 
to them. 

** Foundation Index " of Jewish Heads (5th, 2dth, 50th, 75th, 

^othper centiles). 

Table hi. 






All English Jews and Jewesses 






Sephardic Jews 






West End Jews over 22 years of age 






West End Jews under 22 years of age 






East End Jews over 22 years of age 






East End Jews under 22 years of age 






West End Jewesses 






East End Jewesses 






Here we observe that while the cranial index of the West 
End Jews indicates dolichocephalism, and, therefore, it would 
seem inferiority, their " foundation " index would seem to go on 
all fours with their presumed superiority in intellectual capacity. 
We find, too, that this index increases slightly with age, that it 
is inferior among females in the West End, but only slightly so 
among females in the East. So far then as any knocking at the 
skull can give any clue of the value of what is within, the 
" foundation '' index would seem to answer that purpose much 
better than the cranial index, and is much simpler to get at 
than Mr. Galton's tridimensional " knowledge box." We append 
a table which gives at once by merely reading off in centimetres 
length and breadth of skull, both " cranial " index and " founda- 
tion " index. 

87 J. Jacobs and I. Spielman. — On the Comparative 

"Cranial " and " Foundation " Indexes given in centimetres. 
































































26-8 , 


































































Example : — To find cranial index of skull 15 cm. broad by 19 cm. long, look 
down vertical column headed 15 and along horizontal line opposite figure 19, and 
read off cranial index 79*9 and foundation index 28'5 (really 285 square cm.). 

These seem to us the main points of interest elicited during 
the progress of our inquiries, and we now have the pleasure of 
submitting them to the Anthropological Institute for comment 
and discussion. 

Description of Plate IV. 
This Plate represents in graphic form the results given in 
Table I. The black vertical lines represent the 5th, 25th, 50th, 
7oth and 95th percentiles. The various curves cross these at 
points showing the measurements reached by 95, 75, 50, 25 
and 5 per cent, of the subjects measured. The letters attached 
to either end of each curve indicate the different classes 
whose measurements are given. 

HK (continuous thick curve) = Health Exhibition results for males. 

HP (continuous thin) =llealth Exhibition results for females. 

AJM (thick bars) = AH Jews. ajp (thin bars)=All Jeviresses. 

WJM (heavy stars) = West End Jevirs. wjf (light stars) ■= West End Jewesses. 

EJM (heavy dots) => East End Jews. ejf (light dots) =East End Jewesses. 

s (dots and bars) = Sephardim or Spanish Jews. 



^ 1 



,i • 

- 1 




M 1 






'\' ■•• 



= 1 

■ r , 





,1 1 

li J 




















S " B 

''. _ 

-i- — 




\ ■■■ 

5 5 3 

6 3 " 

1 i 





o 5 








\ '• 






i 5 

S 6 
S g 

" S 
1 ^ 


















\ i 


^ 1 








' T 


-g = 








1 ~ 


4 ' 

■Anthropometry of English Jews. 88 

Thus to take aa example : if we arrauged 100 of each of 
these classes in a row from the shortest to the tallest, the 
seventy-fifth in each company would have the height ahowo by 
the measurement indicated by the corresponding curve at the 
seveiity-fifih percentile of the lowest set of curves ; e.g. the 
seventy-fifth of the East End Jews would be exactly 66 inches, 
of the Sephardim exactly 68, and so on with the rest 

l^Reprintedfrom the JtntrnoZ of the Aal&ropolagieal Imtitate, Asgiut, 1969.] 

■> ta Qriinarg lo Her liajetti/, &